First of all, I believe Obama has never ever said anything like that specifically, unlike "corporations are people" Romney.
No, he says, "the wealthy should pay their fair share". Very delicate phrasing.

Obama has only attacked income inequality, and actually, Obama doesn't even need to blame the rich and wealthy for all the problems. The populist poor are doing it enough already. If you want to blame someone, blame the 99%, not Obama.
Then I blame Obama for being a weak populist. Obviously he's not unique in this regard but it shows poor character.

Politifact has repeatedly placed any claim of Obama as a "socialist" with the rating: Pants on fire

And, while we're at it. I'm so sick and tired of the word socialist being thrown at obama. I am offended in fact. If you want to go to extremes, I would be a socialist. Don't call Obama this phony-not-even-socialist president socialist.
I didn't call him a socialist. Don't be so sensitive.

:lol: I love rich arrogance and ignorance. I could go into a lengthy debate here about how Republicans often think each poor individual has never done anything to deserve success and how they think their "success", if any, is solely due to their conscientiousness but I'm not going to here (because that will take me like ten pages). Let me just point you to a very common fact quoted by sociologists: The biggest indicator of your success in life now is your class. If you are born rich, you are more likely to be rich and vice versa. This class factors outweights the importance of any other factor, even race.
Doesn't sound like you love "rich arrogance". I could go into a lengthy debate about how democrats think poor individuals are stuck and can't get out of poverty on their own; and how rich people are all born into wealth. Let me just point out to you that 75% of billionaires in America and Britain are self-made. Several even came out of poverty. In the millionaire bracket it's an even higher proportion.

If you are going to argue that it may be because poor people are just lazy/whatever, let me remind you this: How many rich second generations good-for-nothings have you seen? That's right, a lot. How many of them are rich? An Overwhelmingly majority. BUT WAIT A SECOND. I THOUGHT IF YOU WERE LAZY YOU WOULD BECOME POOR!

What I am going to say is: If you really don't want social equality, go live in a state/country/place by YOURSELF. that way, whatever you earn goes to you, whatever you do you get to keep. I don't understand how Republicans fail to understand that social redistribution is the fundamental basis of our society and necessary for it to function. If they had it their way, we would be having privatised police forces, fire departments etc. Please go to some far, conservative place, say Wyoming, declare independence, and live there by yourselves for the rest of your life. Thank You.
I don't understand how liberals fail to understand that social redistribution doesn't work. Besides the obvious fall of communism (no, I'm not saying Obama is a communist - calm down), the most libertarian economies in the world have the highest living standards. It's a simple statistic. Average (both mean and median) wealth correlates directly to levels of freedom. Liberal economies lie in the middle and socialists at the bottom.

I'll agree to move to Wyoming if you agree to move to Cuba.

Right, because taxation is a punishment of success, and food stamps to the poor is a "reward" of failure. That simple, that black and white. I hardly consider living on scraps to be a "reward" and Gingrich's 2 million left after his taxation to be a "punishment". Let's not forget that there are costs to success, and this cost has to be paid back to society via the form of taxation. How are you going to succeed if there are not others working for you?
Yes, taxation is a punishment of success, especially in its progressive form. It's like being fined for making more money. I'm sure you think it's "the right and fair thing to do" but there's no moral justification to force people to give up their earnings. Bill Gates needed 100,000 employees to help him get rich and he rewarded them through salaries, benefits and bonuses. Beyond that, there's no reason he's obliged to pay them anything extra.

Wait, so now it's Obama's fault he's black? What?
I bet you wish that's what I said. You should try reading before replying.

Obama actually does not borrow from China, China simply bought US debt. Obama didn't borrow money from anyone in particular. Furthermore, let's not forget that the fact that Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr expanded the deficit as much as (if not more than) Obama, whereas Clinton was the only president in the entire period to have a surplus (not that Clinton has anything to do with Obama), but I just find it hilarious how the Republicans think the debt crisis is the Democrats' fault.
I'm not a republican and certainly not nostalgic about the Bush era. Let me put it in simple terms, America issues bonds to the market, China buys these bonds from the market. Hence, China lends money to America, hence, America borrows money from China. I hope this is clear for you now.

Right, because hawkish, bellicose, right-winged Republicans are going to be so much nicer to Ahmadinejad.
Good thing I'm not a "hawkish, bellicose, right-winged Republican".

Right, because Obama started the wars to get us there in the first place. Oh wait a minute ...
Who is commander in chief of the US Army right now? Oh wait a minute...

Jimnik

01-25-2012, 09:08 PM

Oh and btw, I'm sure Romney earned every single cent of his 20 million. Wait ... he was, in his own words, "unemployed", no?

(cue Republicans attacking how poor people shouldn't receive unemployment benefits because they are too lazy to find a job/work)

(shifts glance to Romney)
I think you'll find Romney is not receiving unemployment benefits, though he's actually entitled to them. Wait, didn't he run several successful businesses a while ago?

I'm not a Romney fan but he's right not to apologize for being successful. Pretty much the only time I applaud him in the debates.

orangehat

01-25-2012, 09:42 PM

No, he says, "the wealthy should pay their fair share". Very delicate phrasing.

So in your words, if you ask for the wealthy to pay their fair share you are implying that they are evil? Come on, even you have to admit your link is so thin it was just a blatant (and failed) dig at Obama. You spewed your rhetoric, now you're backpeddaling

Then I blame Obama for being a weak populist. Obviously he's not unique in this regard but it shows poor character.

People are angry at the rich. Get over it. It's obama's fault that people are angry at the rich now? Please, people have been upset at the tax codes for a long time. In fact, in 2007 there was a bipartisan bill to make tax rates on investments and equity the same as income taxes but was killed due to HUGE lobbying from lobbyists, one of them hired by none other than Bain Capital.

I didn't call him a socialist. Don't be so sensitive.

Yet you accused him of trying to implement european socialist systems. So I assume a non-socialistic president would institute socialistic mandates? Stop backpeddaling ffs.

Doesn't sound like you love "rich arrogance". I could go into a lengthy debate about how democrats think poor individuals are stuck and can't get out of poverty on their own; and how rich people are all born into wealth. Let me just point out to you that 75% of billionaires in America and Britain are self-made. Several even came out of poverty. In the millionaire bracket it's an even higher proportion.

Self-made billionaire is one of the most misleading phrases ever used. Consider Mark Zuckerberg : widely considered to be a self-made billionaire. First of all, he was born to parents who were psychiatrists and dentists, hardly a poor family. 2nd, he received private tutoring from a software programmer, and his father taught him basic programming. 3rd, he attended a very fancy private prep school (tuition of $42,000 a year)

Sure, at the end of the day he did achieve all his success by himself. HOWEVER, WITHOUT ALL THESE THINGS HE WAS BORN INTO, it would have been SIGNIFICANTLY HARDER, if not completely impossible, for him to be where he is today. Which brings me back to my point. There are many poor people who are born into situations that DO NOT give them similar situations. Of course, you will then point out that poor people don't have to be billionaires, they only have to be middle class citizens. Sure, this is completely true but then you should think about those who had all the similar fancy upbringing who are only middle to upper middle class citizens.

You simply cannot deny the fact that the poor are far more disadvantaged and giving benefits to them is a form of social security used to encourage their rise from the poor. If you can't understand that, than I feel sorry for your sense of compassion, because it's dead.

I don't understand how liberals fail to understand that social redistribution doesn't work. Besides the obvious fall of communism (no, I'm not saying Obama is a communist - calm down), the most libertarian economies in the world have the highest living standards. It's a simple statistic. Average (both mean and median) wealth correlates directly to levels of freedom. Liberal economies lie in the middle and socialists at the bottom.

Because the Scandinavian countries are all such libertarians. Because Canada is such a libertarian country. Because Australia is such a libertarian country (before you go into how Australia is a libertarian country, income inequality is far lower in Australia than the US, and taxation is similar, if not higher than that in the US). In fact, if we go by GDP per capita in 2011 according to the IMF in wikipedia, among the top ten countries, the only countries that are not "libertarian" in their economy are 2 Middle Eastern countries - Qatar, and UAE, and Switzerland.

When you discount the fact that the Middle Eastern countries obtain their wealth via Oil and are hardly libertarian in the real sense, you are only left with Switzerland. So much for "libertarian economies in the world have the highest living standards"

I'll agree to move to Wyoming if you agree to move to Cuba.

How about I'll move to Scandinavia if you move to Wyoming. They are such socialists I'm sure you despise them.

Yes, taxation is a punishment of success, especially in its progressive form. It's like being fined for making more money. I'm sure you think it's "the right and fair thing to do" but there's no moral justification to force people to give up their earnings. Bill Gates needed 100,000 employees to help him get rich and he rewarded them through salaries, benefits and bonuses. Beyond that, there's no reason he's obliged to pay them anything extra.

Completely and utterly false. Where did Bill Gates' employees obtain their knowledge from? Schools, education. Where do schools and education come from, ideally the government (though this is obviously not always the case with many private schools), but significantly a large number of employees come from public services. Without these public services, Bill Gates' business cannot operate.

He is obligated to pay a portion of taxes back to the government to compensate for these services that the government has provided its citizens.

I bet you wish that's what I said. You should try reading before replying.

Right, because Obama asked people to vote for him because he is black. That was what you were insinuating, don't try to backpedal again.

I'm not a republican and certainly not nostalgic about the Bush era. Let me put it in simple terms, America issues bonds to the market, China buys these bonds from the market. Hence, China lends money to America, hence, America borrows money from China. I hope this is clear for you now.

I am aware of how the system works. All I am saying is you are simply trying to stir up emotion against Obama by using China in the sentence, and insinuating that Obama is in business with the Chinese, when all Obama did is put up the bonds for sale, and China HAPPENED to buy them.

Good thing I'm not a "hawkish, bellicose, right-winged Republican".

yea but the presidential candidates are. (with the exception of paul but that is another problem altogether)

Who is commander in chief of the US Army right now? Oh wait a minute...

Who pulled the troops out of Iraq? Who was forced to clean up the mess? Don't push this on Obama.

orangehat

01-25-2012, 09:56 PM

I think you'll find Romney is not receiving unemployment benefits, though he's actually entitled to them. Wait, didn't he run several successful businesses a while ago?

I'm not a Romney fan but he's right not to apologize for being successful. Pretty much the only time I applaud him in the debates.

No one is asking Romney to apologizing because he is rich/successful/whatever.

I just find it ridiculous he accuses poor people of being lazy when he is doing nothing and earning 20 million a year.

Jimnik

01-25-2012, 11:04 PM

So in your words, if you ask for the wealthy to pay their fair share you are implying that they are evil? Come on, even you have to admit your link is so thin it was just a blatant (and failed) dig at Obama. You spewed your rhetoric, now you're backpeddaling
Was just trying to play the game by your rules, mate. Your digs at Gingrich, Romney et al were pretty blatant, I'm sure you'd agree.

People are angry at the rich. Get over it. It's obama's fault that people are angry at the rich now? Please, people have been upset at the tax codes for a long time. In fact, in 2007 there was a bipartisan bill to make tax rates on investments and equity the same as income taxes but was killed due to HUGE lobbying from lobbyists, one of them hired by none other than Bain Capital.
I'll never "get over" people being angry at the rich. Like I said, I blame Obama for being a weak populist. I don't blame him for public opinion, being black or anything else you think I've accused him of. Try to stick to the points I make instead of putting ridiculous words in my mouth.

Yet you accused him of trying to implement european socialist systems. So I assume a non-socialistic president would institute socialistic mandates? Stop backpeddaling ffs.
Quote the post where I accused of implementing European socialist systems. Again, try to read my post before enthusiastically attacking your keyboard. He wants a European social welfare state. This makes him a social liberal, not a socialist.

Self-made billionaire is one of the most misleading phrases ever used. Consider Mark Zuckerberg : widely considered to be a self-made billionaire. First of all, he was born to parents who were psychiatrists and dentists, hardly a poor family. 2nd, he received private tutoring from a software programmer, and his father taught him basic programming. 3rd, he attended a very fancy private prep school (tuition of $42,000 a year)

Sure, at the end of the day he did achieve all his success by himself. HOWEVER, WITHOUT ALL THESE THINGS HE WAS BORN INTO, it would have been SIGNIFICANTLY HARDER, if not completely impossible, for him to be where he is today. Which brings me back to my point. There are many poor people who are born into situations that DO NOT give them similar situations. Of course, you will then point out that poor people don't have to be billionaires, they only have to be middle class citizens. Sure, this is completely true but then you should think about those who had all the similar fancy upbringing who are only middle to upper middle class citizens.

You simply cannot deny the fact that the poor are far more disadvantaged and giving benefits to them is a form of social security used to encourage their rise from the poor. If you can't understand that, than I feel sorry for your sense of compassion, because it's dead.
Of course it's easier to make it with wealthier parents. Let me make myself clear, I don't believe pure 100% libertarianism is the optimum economic model. I'm not an idealist. Children who are born into poor backgrounds need health, safety and education. If certain parents fail to provide, it is in the interest of society to intervene. I even welcome some government intervention in this regard. But you also have to be realistic. Good intentions only help if directed the right way. Nothing can be achieved without money and there's no question that people make more when they're free. Yes it's greedy but it's basic human nature that we have to accept because we don't live in an ideal world.

America and the western world are in a great position to do this thanks to wealth generated from ideas and free action. There are many countries where this is not the case and the next generation suffers because the old generation were not free to pursue happiness. You don't end the cycle through heavy subsidies trying to force people out of poverty. This may sound harsh but letting pure emotion dictate decision will almost always be a disaster. If you think that makes me a psychopath then so be it.

Because the Scandinavian countries are all such libertarians. Because Canada is such a libertarian country. Because Australia is such a libertarian country (before you go into how Australia is a libertarian country, income inequality is far lower in Australia than the US, and taxation is similar, if not higher than that in the US). In fact, if we go by GDP per capita in 2011 according to the IMF in wikipedia, among the top ten countries, the only countries that are not "libertarian" in their economy are 2 Middle Eastern countries - Qatar, and UAE, and Switzerland.

When you discount the fact that the Middle Eastern countries obtain their wealth via Oil and are hardly libertarian in the real sense, you are only left with Switzerland. So much for "libertarian economies in the world have the highest living standards"
It's not just about taxation. Labor laws, government bureaucracy, monetary freedom, financial freedom, corruption - there are many factors which measure the level of libertarianism. Denmark and UAE are great examples to illustrate my point. Most businessmen actually consider the former more libertarian than the latter, despite ridiculously harsh tax rates. The fact Dubai is duty free doesn't nearly make up for lagging freedom of press, foreign investment accommodation and other obscure Muslim laws that obstruct business.

The top 10 libertarians are all top economies, in terms of GDP per capita, excluding the oil exporters. Namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, USA, Canada and Denmark. They're not perfectly libertarian but come closer than the rest of the world.

How about I'll move to Scandinavia if you move to Wyoming. They are such socialists I'm sure you despise them.
You really calling Scandinavia socialist? Wish you were here when I was arguing with a genuine Scandinavian. They get very defensive about that.

Completely and utterly false. Where did Bill Gates' employees obtain their knowledge from? Schools, education. Where do schools and education come from, ideally the government (though this is obviously not always the case with many private schools), but significantly a large number of employees come from public services. Without these public services, Bill Gates' business cannot operate.

He is obligated to pay a portion of taxes back to the government to compensate for these services that the government has provided its citizens.
Bill Gates owes the government for protecting him and educating his employees (though many were privately educated and even skilled workers require further training after being hired, which Microsoft paid for). Beyond that, he owes the government nothing.

Right, because Obama asked people to vote for him because he is black. That was what you were insinuating, don't try to backpedal again.
My post is still there for you to read. That's all I can say.

I am aware of how the system works. All I am saying is you are simply trying to stir up emotion against Obama by using China in the sentence, and insinuating that Obama is in business with the Chinese, when all Obama did is put up the bonds for sale, and China HAPPENED to buy them.
I was simply playing your game, first-name "he wants terrible things" last-name, game. It was great fun, as is this debate (if only you'd be a little less dramatic).

yea but the presidential candidates are. (with the exception of paul but that is another problem altogether)
Maybe that's why the good doctor is my choice.

Who pulled the troops out of Iraq? Who was forced to clean up the mess? Don't push this on Obama.
Bush was wrong too. I passionately congratulate Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq (despite failing to clean up the country's mess). Does that satisfy you?

Jimnik

01-25-2012, 11:12 PM

No one is asking Romney to apologizing because he is rich/successful/whatever.

I just find it ridiculous he accuses poor people of being lazy when he is doing nothing and earning 20 million a year.
Did he actually accuse the poor of being lazy? Usually it would be political suicide but credit to him if he had the guts to make that statement.

Yes, right now he's sitting on a beach drinking Pina-Coladas. The image of him fighting a presidential campaign is just a hologram.

but what do i care...? if i lose my job here in europe, i pick up another fairly quickish or i simply wander back to australia and work happily till i die under the sun... but i do give a fuck because what is happening right under our nose is systematic slavery... har-tru, humankind hasn't evolved enough to have a sticking point about what someone believes... the death of god is indeed here, as is the edge of the next enlightenment, but still, humankind is still way too flawed to even begin to able to have a problem with what someone personally believes when they offer our age much more...

much like buddyholly, i fear you might be waiting for jesus... the perfect man... and we all know what happened to that cat... nailed and martyred...

i bid you good luck in your search for such beauty minus imperfection...

fast_clay

01-26-2012, 01:11 AM

Did he actually accuse the poor of being lazy? Usually it would be political suicide but credit to him if he had the guts to make that statement.

Yes, right now he's sitting on a beach drinking Pina-Coladas. The image of him fighting a presidential campaign is just a hologram.

'Hi. I'm Mitt Romney. You might remember me from such epic fuck ups as Last Years Tax Return and the 2008 Presidential Campiagn'
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm182/patma2003/Troy_McClure.png

Bilbo

01-26-2012, 01:16 AM

Will you stop talking nonsense.

Romney has never said he wanted more war. He even said he would never put troops on the ground in Iran.

I don't care what he says on TV. Maybe you have never heard of air forces.

fast_clay

01-26-2012, 01:31 AM

U.S. Forces give the nod,
It's a setback for your country
1982

NaFT48Nl9rA

fast_clay

01-26-2012, 02:06 AM

Jimnik, i'm wondering what your thoughts on Bill Still are...? I'm a big Paul fan, but, this guy I think is the real deal - and he's not a Goldbug... believes in fiat currency... he's running on the Libertarian Party ticket, so, no chance... here is his LP address, interesting, but check out some of his updates.

7gzbq-rZiIQ&feature=relmfu

Har-Tru

01-26-2012, 02:04 PM

i don't understand your disdain for a man who wishes to un-slave the U.S. population, thereby somewhat salvaging european state sovereignty...

Who said I cherish state sovereignty? I might support it as the necessary short-term scenario, but in the long run there is little I strive for more than the fall of independent, and therefore necessarily competing states.

i would have imagined your thought process would have seen through flaws that do not matter to the real issues of the age... unchecked economic slavery...

once upon a time failed bankers jumped off the 35th floor post epic loss... today they pull a 4 course meal most nights a week...

and now the creatures in top hats that crossed the atlantic a century ago have come back home to roost...

but what do i care...? if i lose my job here in europe, i pick up another fairly quickish or i simply wander back to australia and work happily till i die under the sun... but i do give a fuck because what is happening right under our nose is systematic slavery...

That is not the way I approach the issue. I of course agree with you that the savage exploitation of the citizens by the banking enterprises around the world is the most disturbing and pressing issue of our time (climate change aside). But I have my doubts Ron Paul is the answer to our prayers. It is undoubtedly refreshing and encouraging to hear his criticism of corporativism. And yet he is, first and foremost, a hardline libertarian. I don't think I am being naïve in pointing out the glaring contradiction between Paul's vague proposals to deprive the big banking corporations of their power and his structural stance on libertarianism.

But then again, I am far from being a libertarian and I have always regarded this view with a mixture of curiosity and skepticism. I fail to see how interventionism is to blame for the current crisis, or indeed how its absence would make things better. State intervention needs to be thoroughly reviewed and be limited to the necessary minimum. Paul's minimum, however, is way too low. Just as an example, non-monopolistic socialised medicine has been working in Germany for decades, and it is extremely successful. The German taxpayer spends less money than their American counterparts in healthcare, and yet according to all indicators, the German healthcare system outplays the American system. As far as healthcare goes, unleashing the dogs is a terrible idea.

To each his own indeed, states are certainly inefficient and have an annoying tendency to regulate stuff they have no business getting involved with. Citizens see their personal liberties curtailed too often, and original initiative and groundbreaking ideas are at times muted unfortunately. And yet I regard just collective solidarity as the ultimate sign of an advanced society.

har-tru, humankind hasn't evolved enough to have a sticking point about what someone believes... the death of god is indeed here, as is the edge of the next enlightenment, but still, humankind is still way too flawed to even begin to able to have a problem with what someone personally believes when they offer our age much more...

It is not about what he personally believes. The problem is what he believes has deep implications, were he to become the most powerful man on earth. I most certainly would not feel comfortable with a president of the United States who explicitly rejects a proven scientific theory upon which the whole science of biology, and its disciplines of zoology, botanics, genetics etc. are based. For if he can, in the face of the most compelling evidence, fail to see or accept the most obvious truth, what else might he fail to see or accept?

much like buddyholly, i fear you might be waiting for jesus... the perfect man... and we all know what happened to that cat... nailed and martyred...

i bid you good luck in your search for such beauty minus imperfection...

Nice trick using Jesus in an analogy with an anti-theist like myself...

I do not expect perfection, nor do I demand it. But I am not content with mediocrity. By failing to express my deep disenchantment with the current crop of republican presidential candidates, I would be nothing but supporting the continuation of the same status quo I so deeply wish to eliminate.

It is a sad but unquestionable fact that it is in practice impossible to even get the chance to run for public office while being both properly prepared and intellectually honest. But if we wish to reverse the situation, we should stop offering our outspoken support for candidates who so clearly do not meet those criteria.

I will grant you this much: gun to my head and if I was allowed to, I would probably vote for Ron Paul. But, and that is my whole point, I would need a gun to my head.

orangehat

01-26-2012, 08:35 PM

Was just trying to play the game by your rules, mate. Your digs at Gingrich, Romney et al were pretty blatant, I'm sure you'd agree.

I readily agree I took digs at them. However, my digs were true and quoted almost word for word, unlike yours.

Romney did say corporations are people
Romney did claim to be unemployed.
Romney did release statements showing he only paid 15% tax.

Gingrich did have multiple affairs.
Gingrich did have a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany, this after he claimed to be middle-class.
Gingrich did say we should let poor black kids be janitors at schools.

Unlike my arguments, Obama never actually said "corporations are evil".

It's hypocritical how you claim I don't read your words when you yourself can't tell the difference between a direct quote and a (delusional) intepretation.

I'll never "get over" people being angry at the rich. Like I said, I blame Obama for being a weak populist. I don't blame him for public opinion, being black or anything else you think I've accused him of. Try to stick to the points I make instead of putting ridiculous words in my mouth.

Oh please. If Obama went against conservative public opinion on an issue, the right would immediately start screaming "Obama refuses to listen to the will of the people." Now Obama goes with public opinion, and you call him a weak populist? There is nothing that Obama can do that would make you satisfied. (unless he adopts all your ideologies of course). Accusing the president of this country for being a weak populist is silly at best, and damning at worst, particularly when such a issue isn't a black and white issue but a matter of opinion. You can't call him a populist only when he supports a position that you don't support.

Quote the post where I accused of implementing European socialist systems. Again, try to read my post before enthusiastically attacking your keyboard. He wants a European social welfare state. This makes him a social liberal, not a socialist.

Maybe I gave you less credit than you deserved because I assumed you were calling European social welfare state programs "socialistic" like a lot of right-wingers. Whether European systems are inept are an altogether different discussion though.

Of course it's easier to make it with wealthier parents. Let me make myself clear, I don't believe pure 100% libertarianism is the optimum economic model. I'm not an idealist. Children who are born into poor backgrounds need health, safety and education. If certain parents fail to provide, it is in the interest of society to intervene. I even welcome some government intervention in this regard. But you also have to be realistic. Good intentions only help if directed the right way. Nothing can be achieved without money and there's no question that people make more when they're free. Yes it's greedy but it's basic human nature that we have to accept because we don't live in an ideal world.

America and the western world are in a great position to do this thanks to wealth generated from ideas and free action. There are many countries where this is not the case and the next generation suffers because the old generation were not free to pursue happiness. You don't end the cycle through heavy subsidies trying to force people out of poverty. This may sound harsh but letting pure emotion dictate decision will almost always be a disaster. If you think that makes me a psychopath then so be it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth, I never accused you of being a psychopath.

Hobbes argued that man was inherently aggressive and a unregulated state of men would lead to war of all against all. That is human nature. Does that mean human nature cannot be changed/regulated/adjusted for the better? You cannot simply claim that greed is human nature, and it is the best, hence we do nothing to change it! If the creation of states and society such that mutual cooperation was beneficial came about to suppress the inherently violent nature of humans, why can't we adjust our society such that we progress to one of sufficient (not total, communistic or whatever) social justice and still be able to work hard such that the pie is enlarged?

I agree that current measures cannot force people out of poverty. But not in the way you think. I believe the current system is far inadequate in some places and in other places far too wasteful. A vast overhaul of the current benefits system is required with reallocation of resources to certain areas, such as public education, and reduction of other systems, such as medicare/medicaid, though not the absolute abolition of such systems, is required . Furthermore, if we actually do nothing, the situation is only going to get worse. The Gini coefficient has been increasing every year. Income inequality is worsening. This is a fact. And sooner or later, if this continues, we are going to get to the stage where the poor get fed up and start some form of protests or riots. You've seen this in some form through the OWS protests, be they populist or not. It may or may not be right, but it will happen if current rates of income inequality continue to climb.

I am not saying that an October Revolution is going to occur in the US, but we are going to be headed for trouble. China is already seeing multiple protests regarding income inequality. They are currently struggling to handle such issues, balancing delicately the excessive use of force against suppressing those protesting. You cannot possibly suggest that cutting taxes to a flat 15% income tax rate (as gingrich is suggesting now I think) and slashing our budget is going to help such issues (though obviously currently tax loopholes have to be addressed as well).

It's not just about taxation. Labor laws, government bureaucracy, monetary freedom, financial freedom, corruption - there are many factors which measure the level of libertarianism. Denmark and UAE are great examples to illustrate my point. Most businessmen actually consider the former more libertarian than the latter, despite ridiculously harsh tax rates. The fact Dubai is duty free doesn't nearly make up for lagging freedom of press, foreign investment accommodation and other obscure Muslim laws that obstruct business.

The top 10 libertarians are all top economies, in terms of GDP per capita, excluding the oil exporters. Namely Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland, USA, Canada and Denmark. They're not perfectly libertarian but come closer than the rest of the world.

You really calling Scandinavia socialist? Wish you were here when I was arguing with a genuine Scandinavian. They get very defensive about that.

Again, as above, there are a lot of people in the states who think that Scandinavia is the rebirth of the Soviet Union in a socialistic form or some sorts. I'm sorry for not giving you enough credit for that.

Bill Gates owes the government for protecting him and educating his employees (though many were privately educated and even skilled workers require further training after being hired, which Microsoft paid for). Beyond that, he owes the government nothing.

He also owes the government for providing a stable location to do business, just saying. But don't you think all these is insufficient for him to pay the current corporate tax rate he is paying?

My post is still there for you to read. That's all I can say.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this because your statement first of all, is again not an actual quote from obama. 2nd of all, I interprete that statement (and I'm sure I'm not that only one) as an insinuation that people voted for Obama because he was black. And I'm not sure how any of this is his fault.

I was simply playing your game, first-name "he wants terrible things" last-name, game. It was great fun, as is this debate (if only you'd be a little less dramatic).

Bleh. I'll let Har-Tru go on to why he doesn't believe Paul is a good candidate.

Bush was wrong too. I passionately congratulate Obama for pulling troops out of Iraq (despite failing to clean up the country's mess). Does that satisfy you?

There's no need to be condescending. I personally do not approve of Obama's foreign policies (especially his failed promises on immediate withdrawal) but I just find it ridiculous to diminish his achievements on foreign policy as compared to his predecessor. In fact, I would say Obama has a better foreign policy than any of the presidential candidates. (Paul's heart is in the right place but his execution is way off).

buddyholly

01-26-2012, 09:36 PM

much like buddyholly, i fear you might be waiting for jesus... the perfect man... and we all know what happened to that cat... nailed and martyred...

Jesus wasn't an atheist, so doesn't qualify. Unless he was a merry prankster, pulling off the greatest confidence trick of all time.

The only man I know of that was called ''perfect'' in modern times was Che. So, no! But all that claim proved was that even our greatest philosophers can be morons.

No, I am not waiting for perfection. I just thought the Republicans might find someone this side of scary.

buddyholly

01-26-2012, 09:42 PM

I don't understand why the less-rich politicians are always claiming that the rich don't pay enough taxes, but don't claim that they didn't pay what their own laws say they must pay.

fast_clay

01-27-2012, 04:50 AM

It is not about what he personally believes. The problem is what he believes has deep implications, were he to become the most powerful man on earth. I most certainly would not feel comfortable with a president of the United States who explicitly rejects a proven scientific theory upon which the whole science of biology, and its disciplines of zoology, botanics, genetics etc. are based. For if he can, in the face of the most compelling evidence, fail to see or accept the most obvious truth, what else might he fail to see or accept?

i am afraid you do not have that time...

the people who wish to take the freedom to watch what you wish are the opposite to the people that wish for evolution...

people like music, so... an example... the society of choice is the one that has returned power to the artist, yet the record label now own censorship over the internet...?

if you are evolutionist you are libertarian...

it is that simple...

let the chips fall where they may...

i wouldnt mind punching you in the face for your last post, but at least it would be for good reason... in a libertarian society at least my reasons would be heard...

fast_clay

01-27-2012, 04:53 AM

Jesus wasn't an atheist, so doesn't qualify. Unless he was a merry prankster, pulling off the greatest confidence trick of all time.

The only man I know of that was called ''perfect'' in modern times was Che. So, no! But all that claim proved was that even our greatest philosophers can be morons.

No, I am not waiting for perfection. I just thought the Republicans might find someone this side of scary.

that you consider Jesus as a real person is a big step... i am here for you brother...

let us welcome the new sun

Jimnik

01-27-2012, 05:48 AM

I readily agree I took digs at them. However, my digs were true and quoted almost word for word, unlike yours.

Romney did say corporations are people
Romney did claim to be unemployed.
Romney did release statements showing he only paid 15% tax.

Gingrich did have multiple affairs.
Gingrich did have a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany, this after he claimed to be middle-class.
Gingrich did say we should let poor black kids be janitors at schools.

Unlike my arguments, Obama never actually said "corporations are evil".

It's hypocritical how you claim I don't read your words when you yourself can't tell the difference between a direct quote and a (delusional) intepretation.
It's hypocritical how you claim I don't make word for word quotations when you've made several delusional interpretations of my posts.

Gingrich's idea is to let school kids be janitors. I've never heard him say specifically "black kids". Maybe you'd care to provide a link to your quote. The other accusations are complete non-stories, though I'm sure CNN will make a big deal of them.

Oh please. If Obama went against conservative public opinion on an issue, the right would immediately start screaming "Obama refuses to listen to the will of the people." Now Obama goes with public opinion, and you call him a weak populist? There is nothing that Obama can do that would make you satisfied. (unless he adopts all your ideologies of course). Accusing the president of this country for being a weak populist is silly at best, and damning at worst, particularly when such a issue isn't a black and white issue but a matter of opinion. You can't call him a populist only when he supports a position that you don't support.
You need to make up your mind. If you claim he's not against the rich but merely responding to public sentiment then that's populism. It's as simple as that. I, personally, don't believe this is the case, I think it's obvious he genuinely wants to tax the rich more. This would not make him a populist but a left-wing social liberal which I also denounce. But if you claim he's following the opinion of the people and going against his own views then that's weak populism.

Maybe I gave you less credit than you deserved because I assumed you were calling European social welfare state programs "socialistic" like a lot of right-wingers. Whether European systems are inept are an altogether different discussion though.
I'm not a right-winger. I repeat, I'm a libertarian not a conservative.

Now you're putting words in my mouth, I never accused you of being a psychopath.

Hobbes argued that man was inherently aggressive and a unregulated state of men would lead to war of all against all. That is human nature. Does that mean human nature cannot be changed/regulated/adjusted for the better? You cannot simply claim that greed is human nature, and it is the best, hence we do nothing to change it! If the creation of states and society such that mutual cooperation was beneficial came about to suppress the inherently violent nature of humans, why can't we adjust our society such that we progress to one of sufficient (not total, communistic or whatever) social justice and still be able to work hard such that the pie is enlarged?
Man has several flaws, greed and aggressiveness are just two of them. You have to remember who's regulating man's greed. It's not an impartial God or alien entity, it's merely other men who are equally greedy and aggressive. While it would be ideal to destroy greed, it's impossible in a world where humans regulate themselves. All government interference does is transfer money and power from greedy individuals to other greedy individuals. The image liberals have of governments being fair God-like supervisors is delusional.

I agree that current measures cannot force people out of poverty. But not in the way you think. I believe the current system is far inadequate in some places and in other places far too wasteful. A vast overhaul of the current benefits system is required with reallocation of resources to certain areas, such as public education, and reduction of other systems, such as medicare/medicaid, though not the absolute abolition of such systems, is required . Furthermore, if we actually do nothing, the situation is only going to get worse. The Gini coefficient has been increasing every year. Income inequality is worsening. This is a fact. And sooner or later, if this continues, we are going to get to the stage where the poor get fed up and start some form of protests or riots. You've seen this in some form through the OWS protests, be they populist or not. It may or may not be right, but it will happen if current rates of income inequality continue to climb.
As I've said many times, there's nothing theoretically or morally wrong with rising Gini coefficient. But I agree, in reality it creates several problems related to another flaw in human nature, arguably worse than greed, and that's envy. When people live next to others with vastly superior living standards it generates irrational aggressiveness leading to instability. However, unfortunately for the poor, it's much more feasible to regulate envy since the wealthy, even as a slight minority, have the power to resist these attacks. There were many famous "company vs union" battles that took place in the UK in the 1980s and Thatcher was the first to recognize the power of the companies to win these battles.

I am not saying that an October Revolution is going to occur in the US, but we are going to be headed for trouble. China is already seeing multiple protests regarding income inequality. They are currently struggling to handle such issues, balancing delicately the excessive use of force against suppressing those protesting. You cannot possibly suggest that cutting taxes to a flat 15% income tax rate (as gingrich is suggesting now I think) and slashing our budget is going to help such issues (though obviously currently tax loopholes have to be addressed as well).
Will be interesting to see what happens in China. Their biggest problem is not income inequality but the authoritarian government. Frustration over suppressing freedom of speech will eventually boil to the surface though I can't see the government losing control any time soon. The Chinese people are pretty sick of politics and just want to get on with their lives. As long as the economy continues to boom it's not worth the aggravation.

I don't know what exact tax rates there should be but as long as they pay for the following:
1. Domestic police force and justice system
2. National defense (but not more than 2% of GDP)
3. Child welfare and education (but only around 70-90% - nothing can be 100% free)

There's nothing else the government needs to pay for. I'd be surprised if these required income tax rates higher than 20%. If anything I'd be more inclined to raise property tax than income. Penalizing people for making money is far more counter-productive than penalizing an accumulation of assets. Best way to stabilize the housing market and stimulate the economy is to encourage the wealthy to invest rather than sit on a $10million estate.

He also owes the government for providing a stable location to do business, just saying. But don't you think all these is insufficient for him to pay the current corporate tax rate he is paying?
That's what I meant by protecting him. He owes the government for the police force/justice system for protecting him against common criminals and the national defense for protecting him against a foreign invasion. I would make corporate tax rate the same as income - no higher than 20% and hopefully even lower.

Bleh. I'll let Har-Tru go on to why he doesn't believe Paul is a good candidate.
Apparently he's a racist and a nazi sympathizer. Like I said, if you really believe that you've been watching too much CNN. It would be fairer to accuse Obama of being a Maoist than Paul a Jew hater.

There's no need to be condescending. I personally do not approve of Obama's foreign policies (especially his failed promises on immediate withdrawal) but I just find it ridiculous to diminish his achievements on foreign policy as compared to his predecessor. In fact, I would say Obama has a better foreign policy than any of the presidential candidates. (Paul's heart is in the right place but his execution is way off).
Look at Iran. Obama is happy to denounce the regime, impose economic sanctions, give false hopes of support to the anti-government rebels and then watch as they get destroyed by their own government. Either you take the Gingrich approach and commit to the rebels or you take the Paul approach and stay out of it completely. Obama has done neither. The regime has now killed and imprisoned the rebels further weakening their cause. Hence his foreign policy has been the worst compromise of aggression and passiveness.

Jimnik

01-27-2012, 06:29 AM

Jimnik, i'm wondering what your thoughts on Bill Still are...? I'm a big Paul fan, but, this guy I think is the real deal - and he's not a Goldbug... believes in fiat currency... he's running on the Libertarian Party ticket, so, no chance... here is his LP address, interesting, but check out some of his updates.

7gzbq-rZiIQ&feature=relmfu
At first I read Ben Stiller, was getting excited there. :lol:

God bless this guy. He's a real nerd but makes many very good points. I actually agree with him regarding fiat money, the Federal Reserve is not the real issue here. I don't think it's worth the aggravation going back to the gold standard but I'm happy either way.

I'm glad he made the distinction between reduced government and anarchy. Libertarianism isn't about the complete destruction of government but limiting it to its basic core functions.

Having to read his speech off a screen will be a problem when running for president. It takes more than good ideas to be nominated, you also need to be good at communicating and debating those ideas. I get the impression he would struggle to improvise in a real-time environment. But I would definitely vote for him if he were the libertarian candidate.

Jimnik

01-27-2012, 07:07 AM

Did anyone watch the debate last night? Another good one, much better than the SC debates.

The moderator did his best to incite a petty argument between Gingrich and Romney and succeeded very well. It's so easy to wind those two up. But it's good practice before the democrats unload in the actual presidential campaign.

Gingrich is definitely sucking up to Paul a little bit only confirming Newt as my 2nd choice (in a good way). ;)

Jimnik

01-27-2012, 07:14 AM

7lEBoAJTWBc

This is why Ron can't be republican candidate. Such a big gap on foreign policy.

buddyholly

01-27-2012, 03:57 PM

This is why Ron can't be republican candidate. Such a big gap on foreign policy.

Having lived for 10 years in Cuba I concluded that the best way to bring down the Cuban regime is for the US to allow unrestricted trade and tourism to the island. Castro blames the US for all Cuban problems. Just remove his excuse and the emperor would have no clothes. I think most Cubans on the island agree with this.

buddyholly

01-27-2012, 04:02 PM

The moderator did his best to incite a petty argument between Gingrich and Romney and succeeded very well. It's so easy to wind those two up.

But Romney looked like a possible president and Newt just looked like a pudgy-faced fool. Looks have a big say when it comes to the election.

Besides Nancy Pelosi said Newt can never be the Republican nominee because she knows something that would eliminate him if she chose to disclose it. Very intriguing. Maybe he copped a feel while they were snuggling up on the sofa to fight global warming. Yeah, such bad taste would definitely eliminate him!

Stensland

01-27-2012, 06:06 PM

Having lived for 10 years in Cuba I concluded that the best way to bring down the Cuban regime is for the US to allow unrestricted trade and tourism to the island. Castro blames the US for all Cuban problems. Just remove his excuse and the emperor would have no clothes. I think most Cubans on the island agree with this.

apparently cuba is no major issue for you though, otherwise you'd be a staunch democrat.

buddyholly

01-27-2012, 10:38 PM

apparently cuba is no major issue for you though, otherwise you'd be a staunch democrat.

Why? What have they done to change anything? Talk doesn't bother Fidel.
When Clinton made a move, Fidel shot down a Brothers to the Rescue plane. Clinton bought it and cancelled any more overtures.

orangehat

01-27-2012, 10:51 PM

It's hypocritical how you claim I don't make word for word quotations when you've made several delusional interpretations of my posts.

Gingrich's idea is to let school kids be janitors. I've never heard him say specifically "black kids". Maybe you'd care to provide a link to your quote. The other accusations are complete non-stories, though I'm sure CNN will make a big deal of them.

Gingrich talked about how there is 43% unemployment among teenage blacks, and then went on to talk about how they don't have a work ethic, and then went on to how teenage kids should be janitors. Now, I'll admit it was not a word for word quote but if that doesn't imply that he thinks black kids should be janitors then I don't know what does.

And while we're on the topic, I most certainly did not make delusional interpretations of your posts. Ask someone else to interprete your post. I am confident a majority of people will interpret your post the same way I did.

Corporations being people is a non-story? Are you kidding me? You are essentially twisting the meaning of the constitution (which I'm sure you as a libertarian care very much about). This comment on youtube may be a very bad analogy but it made me laugh. A soda machine earns money. Where does the money go? To people. Therefore soda machines are people!

Gingrich having multiple affairs in itself may not be an issue, but his hypocritical demeanor (*cough* Clinton, *cough* gay marriage) is certainly an issue. If you don't think that's an issue, then you're either only concerned about economic issues or one who would elect a president that says one thing and does the complete opposite.

(The other names are issues too but seeing as I have too many other points to go on to ... I'm just going to explain these 2 highlights.)

You need to make up your mind. If you claim he's not against the rich but merely responding to public sentiment then that's populism. It's as simple as that. I, personally, don't believe this is the case, I think it's obvious he genuinely wants to tax the rich more. This would not make him a populist but a left-wing social liberal which I also denounce. But if you claim he's following the opinion of the people and going against his own views then that's weak populism.

Please you've lost all sense of the argument. I argued that Obama did not attack the rich, it is the (majority) of the public (at least those at the OWS Protests) that are doing it. Obama is attacking income inequality. Don't agree with the methods he attacks that with, fine. But you accused Obama of blaming the problems on the rich and wealthy, which is entirely not the case. It was a misinformed argument.

I'm not a right-winger. I repeat, I'm a libertarian not a conservative.

Fair enough, but you can't disagree that Libertarianism as a whole in the US leans closer to the right than it does to the left.

Man has several flaws, greed and aggressiveness are just two of them. You have to remember who's regulating man's greed. It's not an impartial God or alien entity, it's merely other men who are equally greedy and aggressive. While it would be ideal to destroy greed, it's impossible in a world where humans regulate themselves. All government interference does is transfer money and power from greedy individuals to other greedy individuals. The image liberals have of governments being fair God-like supervisors is delusional.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Technically violence and power is a transferrable trait too. Why would democracy happen if there were severely power-hungry individuals who wanted to look for absolute power and rule society through a monarchy or even an empire? Democracy came about because the poor and oppressed stood up for themselves and revolted against the rich and powerful. Same here. If the poor are exploited to a great extent, it is inevitable that there eventually will be a revolt. Democracy today is still not absolutely equal. There are still individuals with a lot more power than others. However, we have reduced the amount of discrepancy between individuals. Why can't we do the same for money?

As I've said many times, there's nothing theoretically or morally wrong with rising Gini coefficient. But I agree, in reality it creates several problems related to another flaw in human nature, arguably worse than greed, and that's envy. When people live next to others with vastly superior living standards it generates irrational aggressiveness leading to instability. However, unfortunately for the poor, it's much more feasible to regulate envy since the wealthy, even as a slight minority, have the power to resist these attacks. There were many famous "company vs union" battles that took place in the UK in the 1980s and Thatcher was the first to recognize the power of the companies to win these battles.

Would you argue that hence there's nothing theoretically or morally wrong with the United States being a monarchy, provided the monarchy did not wield powers such as to execute random people on their whims and without the existence of slaves, since if wealth concentration is not a problem, neither should power concentration? The Thatcher example is a good one though on a completely and utterly irrelevant point I would like to point out that even she raised taxes at points in time.

Will be interesting to see what happens in China. Their biggest problem is not income inequality but the authoritarian government. Frustration over suppressing freedom of speech will eventually boil to the surface though I can't see the government losing control any time soon. The Chinese people are pretty sick of politics and just want to get on with their lives. As long as the economy continues to boom it's not worth the aggravation.

I don't know what exact tax rates there should be but as long as they pay for the following:
1. Domestic police force and justice system
2. National defense (but not more than 2% of GDP)
3. Child welfare and education (but only around 70-90% - nothing can be 100% free)

There's nothing else the government needs to pay for. I'd be surprised if these required income tax rates higher than 20%. If anything I'd be more inclined to raise property tax than income. Penalizing people for making money is far more counter-productive than penalizing an accumulation of assets. Best way to stabilize the housing market and stimulate the economy is to encourage the wealthy to invest rather than sit on a $10million estate.

The Chinese couldn't care less about a lack of free speech, not at this point of time anyway. Those speaking up about a lack of free speech are few democratic activists (or are Tibetian/Uyghurs, which is a different issue in itself). Their main problems are corruption (and a subsequent refusal to accept responsibility by the government for errors), a complete disorganization between central powers and local powers, as well as income inequality. Now these 3 problems are completely intertwined, with corruption from central powers leading to corruption in local powers, making people with powerful positions richer and those with connections to these powerful people richer, causing income inequality to rise, leading to resentment about income inequality. Cycle repeats.

Hello? Infrastructure? China is spending 12.5% of it's GDP on infrastructure, Europe at 5% and the US at a measly 2.8%. Of course, China's infrastructure far lags behind that of the US, so they do need to spend more at this time to catch up, but it's not exactly as if the US's infrastructure is new in any sense of the word. So many airports in the US are dreadful (as compared to the spanking new airports even in non-major cities in China). The railroad system is up and coming, despite several stumbling issues along the way. (I understand that the rail system is not as feasible in the US but still). The point is infrastructure is important to an economy, and tax dollars pay for said infrastructure. Except when you exclude infrastructure expenditure out of the budget.

That's what I meant by protecting him. He owes the government for the police force/justice system for protecting him against common criminals and the national defense for protecting him against a foreign invasion. I would make corporate tax rate the same as income - no higher than 20% and hopefully even lower.

Well then we're going to have to agree to disagree because I believe it's at least 25-30%.

Apparently he's a racist and a nazi sympathizer. Like I said, if you really believe that you've been watching too much CNN. It would be fairer to accuse Obama of being a Maoist than Paul a Jew hater.

I'm pretty sure that there are more reasons apart from these fringe issues. If such fringe issues were a problem then dear lord I pray for Gingrich and Santorum.

On a side note, what news do you watch (if any)? I presume it's not fox news because that would be hysterically hypocritical.

Look at Iran. Obama is happy to denounce the regime, impose economic sanctions, give false hopes of support to the anti-government rebels and then watch as they get destroyed by their own government. Either you take the Gingrich approach and commit to the rebels or you take the Paul approach and stay out of it completely. Obama has done neither. The regime has now killed and imprisoned the rebels further weakening their cause. Hence his foreign policy has been the worst compromise of aggression and passiveness.

On the contrary, I feel Obama's policy is the best, though it could move slightly towards Paul's end. Supporting the rebels (and subsequently providing military support if necessary) is essentially what you denounce as being imperialistic and something I do not support either. However, if you are to use Paul isolationism it's just bad idea. You cannot continue to isolate yourself from the world, particularly when the balance of power is shifting towards Asia which is about only an ocean away from you. Look what happened to the world when the US decided to go into isolationist mode before BOTH world wars. (obviously world wars occured). Imagine if US tried to assert more power (particularly during WWII) and used a strong stance with the British and French against Hitler and Japan. Appeasement may or may not have happened, Germany expansion into European territory may or may not happened, but most certainly Japanese expansion into Asia would not have happened.

Isolationism wasn't a good choice 70 years ago, it sure as hell isn't now.

orangehat

01-27-2012, 11:00 PM

7lEBoAJTWBc

This is why Ron can't be republican candidate. Such a big gap on foreign policy.

Interestingly, on Latin America (particularly central America) it is where the US can create huge gains without the use of hardline/reconciliatory policies.

There are many countries in Latin America without formal diplomatic relations with China, namely Belize, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and some other island countries.

Free trade and investment here would be greatly beneficial to expand US influence. Remember, China is doing the same thing throughout most of Africa. The US should adopt similar china policies in this region and aim for overall stability (particularly when it's in their own backyard, which is probably why Obama and the whole Honduras fiasco happened).

Expanding overall US influence in the Americas would be particularly beneficial, before these countries switch relations to those with China and China starts developing this region as well.

Stensland

01-27-2012, 11:10 PM

Why? What have they done to change anything? Talk doesn't bother Fidel.
When Clinton made a move, Fidel shot down a Brothers to the Rescue plane. Clinton bought it and cancelled any more overtures.

if it wasn't for right-wing opposition cuban-american relations would probably have officially resumed ages ago, don't you think? chances are fidel's iron fist would've softened over the years as well.

buddyholly

01-28-2012, 05:13 AM

if it wasn't for right-wing opposition cuban-american relations would probably have officially resumed ages ago, don't you think? chances are fidel's iron fist would've softened over the years as well.

Yes, my friends who wanted to stay in Cuba rather than escape to Miami did not have a high opinion of the Miami Cubans. They felt that they did not want a gradual change, but wanted a violent collapse, after which they would move back in with all their dollars and buy up the island, while the poor residents would have no means to buy anything.

Allez

01-28-2012, 12:45 PM

Looks like Mitt Romney will wrap this up with a Primary win in Florida on Tuesday. Obama will then tear him a new one between now and November. He is by far the weakest of the republican candidates. He doesn't inspire passion in his supporters.

Har-Tru

01-28-2012, 01:23 PM

i am afraid you do not have that time...

the people who wish to take the freedom to watch what you wish are the opposite to the people that wish for evolution...

people like music, so... an example... the society of choice is the one that has returned power to the artist, yet the record label now own censorship over the internet...?

if you are evolutionist you are libertarian...

it is that simple...

let the chips fall where they may...

i wouldnt mind punching you in the face for your last post, but at least it would be for good reason... in a libertarian society at least my reasons would be heard...

You are rambling here. I wish you'd engaged my points.

An evolutionist is nothing more than an informed intellectually honest person. Libertarianism has nothing to do with a biological scientific theory.

On the figurative sense you surely intended your remarks, again I don't see how libertarianism is the way to go. As a matter of fact, I don't think the libertarianism/interventionism debate has that much to do with the current crisis.

buddyholly

01-28-2012, 02:55 PM

Looks like Mitt Romney will wrap this up with a Primary win in Florida on Tuesday. Obama will then tear him a new one between now and November. He is by far the weakest of the republican candidates. He doesn't inspire passion in his supporters.

Can you list the achievements of Obama over the last 4 years and explain why he should be re-elected?

fast_clay

01-28-2012, 10:44 PM

You are rambling here. I wish you'd engaged my points.

An evolutionist is nothing more than an informed intellectually honest person. Libertarianism has nothing to do with a biological scientific theory.

On the figurative sense you surely intended your remarks, again I don't see how libertarianism is the way to go. As a matter of fact, I don't think the libertarianism/interventionism debate has that much to do with the current crisis.

yeah sorry mate... was actually back after australia day celebrations... is actually a very coherent post when you take into account the massive substance cocktail that help make it so epic... but well detected all the same man...

i was a bit of a lefty once a upon a time when was a lazy thinker... and then undecided for the longest time... by the start of 2009 i began to wonder it we were really collectively living inside a society that preached free markets...

i mean, there were free markets out there, but free markets for who...?

in the libertarian world you live and die by the sword... the risk/reward system of capitalism is applied to all... and it doesn't even have to be some utopian version of a libertarian world for this to be the case...

would you at least concede what is written below Har-Tru...?

in a libertarian world, anyone involved in the sub prime market gets hurt - the sh!t would have hit the fan in fine style, perhaps the greatest style in economic history... something truly global... and the amount everyone gets hurt proportional to the amount of involvement (directly or indirectly) with the bad banks... you play with fire you get hurt...

are there not lessons to be learnt here...? in a libertarian society, and not even the perfect model, everyone who rolls the dice in capitalism gets equal chance...

and, what sort of sick capitalism is this when it now appears to have morphed into the worst form of socialism we could have ever imagined ie; free markets for the masses who pay tax to protect banking institutions that have been deemed 'too big to fail.'...? nightmarish anyone...? i mean, i am just saying it how it is, how it is unfolding...

no, in a libertarian world, the true source of trouble is not ignored - and that is the evolution that we need... we don't need protection from the government - nor do we need to be protected from ourselves... we just need a level playing field and a referee who loves a free flowing game - not one referee per player...

wall street fucked up... they fucked up royale... anyone involved should have got hurt... many go bankrupt... shit gets written off... you learn your lesson, set up your own regulations to protect against that shit next time, pick up the pieces and start again... we are supposed to learn from mistakes, not be put in nappies by the Guvna and told to pretend that mistakes don't happen... no, shit happens - a rule of life... mistakes make us - we are the product of them... mistakes help us to evolve... however what we live in is orchestrated fantasy... aka control...

in a libertarian world, misery must run it's due course and not be shunned... and believe me, the misery would be filled with a lot of tears, but in a short burst - not the salty river nile we are still wondering what to do with...

Har-Tru, i get the feeling you might be blaming a financial ideology for these crises... not sure... but if so, i agree... i guess i would just comment that inside a libertarian world, our financial ideologies would have already been shaped by the mistakes of 2008... or 1987... or by whatever previous crash you wanna add...

for a population to evolve it's need a certain amount of room... including room to fail... failure is a necessary part of the marketplace, local or global, it doesnt matter...

sorry about my last response i will go back and respond to you as i should have... i was just fully smashed in a few different directions... the effects of national bogan day aka white european invasion day...

Har-Tru

01-29-2012, 11:53 AM

yeah sorry mate... was actually back after australia day celebrations... is actually a very coherent post when you take into account the massive substance cocktail that help make it so epic... but well detected all the same man...

i was a bit of a lefty once a upon a time when was a lazy thinker... and then undecided for the longest time... by the start of 2009 i began to wonder it we were really collectively living inside a society that preached free markets...

i mean, there were free markets out there, but free markets for who...?

in the libertarian world you live and die by the sword... the risk/reward system of capitalism is applied to all... and it doesn't even have to be some utopian version of a libertarian world for this to be the case...

would you at least concede what is written below Har-Tru...?

in a libertarian world, anyone involved in the sub prime market gets hurt - the sh!t would have hit the fan in fine style, perhaps the greatest style in economic history... something truly global... and the amount everyone gets hurt proportional to the amount of involvement (directly or indirectly) with the bad banks... you play with fire you get hurt...

are there not lessons to be learnt here...? in a libertarian society, and not even the perfect model, everyone who rolls the dice in capitalism gets equal chance...

and, what sort of sick capitalism is this when it now appears to have morphed into the worst form of socialism we could have ever imagined ie; free markets for the masses who pay tax to protect banking institutions that have been deemed 'too big to fail.'...? nightmarish anyone...? i mean, i am just saying it how it is, how it is unfolding...

no, in a libertarian world, the true source of trouble is not ignored - and that is the evolution that we need... we don't need protection from the government - nor do we need to be protected from ourselves... we just need a level playing field and a referee who loves a free flowing game - not one referee per player...

wall street fucked up... they fucked up royale... anyone involved should have got hurt... many go bankrupt... shit gets written off... you learn your lesson, set up your own regulations to protect against that shit next time, pick up the pieces and start again... we are supposed to learn from mistakes, not be put in nappies by the Guvna and told to pretend that mistakes don't happen... no, shit happens - a rule of life... mistakes make us - we are the product of them... mistakes help us to evolve... however what we live in is orchestrated fantasy... aka control...

in a libertarian world, misery must run it's due course and not be shunned... and believe me, the misery would be filled with a lot of tears, but in a short burst - not the salty river nile we are still wondering what to do with...

Har-Tru, i get the feeling you might be blaming a financial ideology for these crises... not sure... but if so, i agree... i guess i would just comment that inside a libertarian world, our financial ideologies would have already been shaped by the mistakes of 2008... or 1987... or by whatever previous crash you wanna add...

for a population to evolve it's need a certain amount of room... including room to fail... failure is a necessary part of the marketplace, local or global, it doesnt matter...

sorry about my last response i will go back and respond to you as i should have... i was just fully smashed in a few different directions... the effects of national bogan day aka white european invasion day...

You fucking drunken bogan. :lol:

I will certainly agree with you on most points. The course of action should truly be that of giving all actors free space to manoeuvre. I just suspect pure libertarianism could end up benefiting the big fish all the same anyway. We have to put an end to the stranglehold the banks have over our societies, and the first thing we should do is stop bailing them out and creating game rules that are tailor-made for them. But let us not forget the main problem here is the concept of debt. How do we deal with such an ingrained cultural concept?

Jimnik

01-30-2012, 12:24 AM

Gingrich talked about how there is 43% unemployment among teenage blacks, and then went on to talk about how they don't have a work ethic, and then went on to how teenage kids should be janitors. Now, I'll admit it was not a word for word quote but if that doesn't imply that he thinks black kids should be janitors then I don't know what does.

And while we're on the topic, I most certainly did not make delusional interpretations of your posts. Ask someone else to interprete your post. I am confident a majority of people will interpret your post the same way I did.

Corporations being people is a non-story? Are you kidding me? You are essentially twisting the meaning of the constitution (which I'm sure you as a libertarian care very much about). This comment on youtube may be a very bad analogy but it made me laugh. A soda machine earns money. Where does the money go? To people. Therefore soda machines are people!

Gingrich having multiple affairs in itself may not be an issue, but his hypocritical demeanor (*cough* Clinton, *cough* gay marriage) is certainly an issue. If you don't think that's an issue, then you're either only concerned about economic issues or one who would elect a president that says one thing and does the complete opposite.
Liberals will have a field day trying to portray Gingrich as a racist, which he obviously isn't but it's the most sensitive issue. Unfortunately it will work which is why republicans are better off nominating Romney.

Hmm, interesting. I had no idea corporations are soda machines. You know what, I'm totally liberal when it comes to machines. Those greedy bastards need to pay their fair share. I mean we made them! They owe us their lives, their souls, their very existence. Next time I see a soda machine I'm gonna kick it's butt.

I didn't give a shit about Clinton's sex life and I don't give a shit about Gingrich's either.

Please you've lost all sense of the argument. I argued that Obama did not attack the rich, it is the (majority) of the public (at least those at the OWS Protests) that are doing it. Obama is attacking income inequality. Don't agree with the methods he attacks that with, fine. But you accused Obama of blaming the problems on the rich and wealthy, which is entirely not the case. It was a misinformed argument.
So what is the difference between attacking income inequality and the rich?

Fair enough, but you can't disagree that Libertarianism as a whole in the US leans closer to the right than it does to the left.
On economic issues, not social issues.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Technically violence and power is a transferrable trait too. Why would democracy happen if there were severely power-hungry individuals who wanted to look for absolute power and rule society through a monarchy or even an empire? Democracy came about because the poor and oppressed stood up for themselves and revolted against the rich and powerful. Same here. If the poor are exploited to a great extent, it is inevitable that there eventually will be a revolt. Democracy today is still not absolutely equal. There are still individuals with a lot more power than others. However, we have reduced the amount of discrepancy between individuals. Why can't we do the same for money?
Completely false, especially regarding America. Democracy came about thanks to a common classless goal of liberty and independence. You might want to check your historic facts and the constitution. Income inequality had absolutely zero influence. If you're looking for an example of the poor and oppressed standing up for themselves then look no further than the Russian Revolution.

My argument was very simple but obviously it flew right over your head. You have a very stubborn liberal outlook of all rich people being inherently lucky. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. The facts universally invalidate your argument. The only American billionaires that inherited their fortunes are those whose parents or grandparents created an idea in the first place. The only thing this proves is luck plays a role and a 100% meritocratic society is impossible.

Would you argue that hence there's nothing theoretically or morally wrong with the United States being a monarchy, provided the monarchy did not wield powers such as to execute random people on their whims and without the existence of slaves, since if wealth concentration is not a problem, neither should power concentration? The Thatcher example is a good one though on a completely and utterly irrelevant point I would like to point out that even she raised taxes at points in time.
If you seriously think a wealthy monarch is comparable to a wealthy entrepreneur, you're even more deluded than the average liberal. The next time Queen Elizabeth II invents an operating system or Bill Gates receives millions from tax payers for being born, then we can talk.

The Chinese couldn't care less about a lack of free speech, not at this point of time anyway. Those speaking up about a lack of free speech are few democratic activists (or are Tibetian/Uyghurs, which is a different issue in itself). Their main problems are corruption (and a subsequent refusal to accept responsibility by the government for errors), a complete disorganization between central powers and local powers, as well as income inequality. Now these 3 problems are completely intertwined, with corruption from central powers leading to corruption in local powers, making people with powerful positions richer and those with connections to these powerful people richer, causing income inequality to rise, leading to resentment about income inequality. Cycle repeats.
Wrong again. I'm sure these are the issues liberals like you care more about but certainly not the Chinese. When you have no access to Google, Facebook, most news sites and half of Wikipedia you're reminded you're still living under the same regime responsible for 30 years of isolation, violence and starvation. People finally have a job, a home and dinner at the table. With lower-middle class living standards improving this dramatically, a few rich people getting richer is a complete non-issue.

Hello? Infrastructure? China is spending 12.5% of it's GDP on infrastructure, Europe at 5% and the US at a measly 2.8%. Of course, China's infrastructure far lags behind that of the US, so they do need to spend more at this time to catch up, but it's not exactly as if the US's infrastructure is new in any sense of the word. So many airports in the US are dreadful (as compared to the spanking new airports even in non-major cities in China). The railroad system is up and coming, despite several stumbling issues along the way. (I understand that the rail system is not as feasible in the US but still). The point is infrastructure is important to an economy, and tax dollars pay for said infrastructure. Except when you exclude infrastructure expenditure out of the budget.
Unfortunately your argument disproves itself. Infrastructure spending as a percentage of GDP (according to you) is China > EU > America. Yet current GDP per capita is US > EU > China. America spends what it needs to and not a penny more. Europe's green policies will always make it inefficient in this regard although the UK and Germany are planning to privatize their roads and rail networks so they might soon be heading in the same direction.

On a side note, what news do you watch (if any)? I presume it's not fox news because that would be hysterically hypocritical.
Fox, CNN, CNBC, BBC and Al Jazeera. Especially the latter because it reports global stories and has a reliable online stream.

On the contrary, I feel Obama's policy is the best, though it could move slightly towards Paul's end. Supporting the rebels (and subsequently providing military support if necessary) is essentially what you denounce as being imperialistic and something I do not support either. However, if you are to use Paul isolationism it's just bad idea. You cannot continue to isolate yourself from the world, particularly when the balance of power is shifting towards Asia which is about only an ocean away from you. Look what happened to the world when the US decided to go into isolationist mode before BOTH world wars. (obviously world wars occured). Imagine if US tried to assert more power (particularly during WWII) and used a strong stance with the British and French against Hitler and Japan. Appeasement may or may not have happened, Germany expansion into European territory may or may not happened, but most certainly Japanese expansion into Asia would not have happened.

Isolationism wasn't a good choice 70 years ago, it sure as hell isn't now.
So you're saying being neutral on Iran is isolationism? You think leaving the middle-east alone will cause EU and China to cut-off trade ties?

If you really consider Iran as powerful and threatening an enemy as Japan or Germany then you're even more paranoid than the average republican.

Switzerland has remained neutral for hundreds of years. It risks an isolationist policy despite relying ten times more on trade than the mostly self-sufficient US.

buddyholly

02-01-2012, 04:07 AM

I didn't give a shit about Clinton's sex life and I don't give a shit about Gingrich's either.

Unfortunately, Gingrich may give a shit about yours.

He certainly was very obsessed with Clinton's.

Sounds like not the kind of guy you would want to know.

buddyholly

02-01-2012, 04:16 AM

If you seriously think a wealthy monarch is comparable to a wealthy entrepreneur, you're even more deluded than the average liberal. The next time Queen Elizabeth II invents an operating system or Bill Gates receives millions from tax payers for being born, then we can talk.

I would argue that throughout her life the Queen has worked as hard or harder, and has even done a better job than, many CEO's who earn similar salaries.

The tourist dollars she brings in more than justifies her salary.

Jimnik

02-01-2012, 05:11 AM

Unfortunately, Gingrich may give a shit about yours.

He certainly was very obsessed with Clinton's.

Sounds like not the kind of guy you would want to know.
Unfortunately, Clinton's case only proves running a country doesn't require a stable sex life.

I don't plan to get to know whoever the next president is.

I would argue that throughout her life the Queen has worked as hard or harder, and has even done a better job than, many CEO's who earn similar salaries.

The tourist dollars she brings in more than justifies her salary.
You're saying the harder the Queen works, the more tourists she brings in? Interesting theory. I guess she deserves it for all the famous monuments and global reputation Britain built over the last two millennia.

Jimnik

02-01-2012, 05:14 AM

Florida primary results:

Romney 46%
Gingrich 32%
Santorum 13%
Paul 7%

All 50 delegates go to the winner.

Shit result for the doctor but still better than 2008 and no real surprise in a closed primary. At least it's one of the states where coming a close 2nd doesn't help the delegate count.

buddyholly

02-01-2012, 02:57 PM

Unfortunately, Clinton's case only proves running a country doesn't require a stable sex life

You're saying the harder the Queen works, the more tourists she brings in? Interesting theory. I guess she deserves it for all the famous monuments and global reputation Britain built over the last two millennia.

Why is it unfortunate? Gingrich describes himself as a big man with big ideas. It is hardly surprising he fells entitled to multiple sexual partners.

I don't think it is an interesting theory, just a well-known fact. The whole royal thing is what brings the tourists flocking to London. Unfortunately, this is about to end, unless the crown skips a generation.

Jimnik

02-01-2012, 05:17 PM

I don't think it is an interesting theory, just a well-known fact. The whole royal thing is what brings the tourists flocking to London. Unfortunately, this is about to end, unless the crown skips a generation.
At least Prince Charming's rise to power will force Brits into the euro. No-one wants his head on all the bank notes. Might also encourage Scottish independence.

buddyholly

02-01-2012, 10:14 PM

There will just be room for one ear.

fast_clay

02-03-2012, 04:07 AM

i would probably protest pretty hard about a dummy on my money

ballbasher101

02-03-2012, 11:45 PM

American leadership has never been this poor. People thought Obama was going to be the saviour :lol:. He is better than Bush but then again Bush was so useless it is not even funny. Mitt Romney will get elected but he will probably be crap also. America is run by big business not politicians. Politicians are bought and paid for before they are even elected.

buddyholly

02-04-2012, 02:48 AM

American leadership has never been this poor. People thought Obama was going to be the saviour :lol:. He is better than Bush but then again Bush was so useless it is not even funny. Mitt Romney will get elected but he will probably be crap also. America is run by big business not politicians. Politicians are bought and paid for before they are even elected.

So you think the actual voting is unecessary?

ballbasher101

02-04-2012, 04:21 AM

So you think the actual voting is unecessary?

Elections are there for the sake of being there. It does not matter who gets voted in. Politicians do not look after the interests of the people. It does not matter whether it is is in the UK or America. Tax payers work their asses off, politicians then take that money to bail out rich imbeciles :mad: That is not right. Yes people can demonstrate and all that but of course their grievances fall on deaf ears.

fast_clay

02-04-2012, 04:25 AM

people do want a good society, one that affords everyone a good time... just depends on when they wanna get hard and fight for it...

Jimnik

02-04-2012, 08:11 AM

Elections are there for the sake of being there. It does not matter who gets voted in. Politicians do not look after the interests of the people. It does not matter whether it is is in the UK or America. Tax payers work their asses off, politicians then take that money to bail out rich imbeciles :mad: That is not right. Yes people can demonstrate and all that but of course their grievances fall on deaf ears.
Complaining about it isn't going to help.

What would you do if you were in power?

buddyholly

02-04-2012, 12:40 PM

Elections are there for the sake of being there. It does not matter who gets voted in. Politicians do not look after the interests of the people. It does not matter whether it is is in the UK or America. Tax payers work their asses off, politicians then take that money to bail out rich imbeciles :mad: That is not right. Yes people can demonstrate and all that but of course their grievances fall on deaf ears.

I don't understand how you have not considered how all these demonstrators can also vote.

ballbasher101

02-04-2012, 06:23 PM

I don't understand how you have not considered how all these demonstrators can also vote.

That is the thing. There is no real choice. In the US there are only 2 real parties. In the UK it is almost exactly the same. It does not matter who people vote for. Having only 2 parties to choose from is laughable. People think they have choice but in reality they don't.

Jimnik

02-07-2012, 04:31 AM

Nevada results:

Romney 50.1%
Gingrich 21.1%
Paul 18.8%
Santorum 10%

Never in doubt. Romney actually did worse than 2008 though not by much.

buddyholly

02-07-2012, 01:41 PM

That is the thing. There is no real choice. In the US there are only 2 real parties. In the UK it is almost exactly the same. It does not matter who people vote for. Having only 2 parties to choose from is laughable. People think they have choice but in reality they don't.

So other parties are banned? Or is it just that the voters choose not to support them?

So if anything is to be laughed at, start with the voters. That means you.

Time Violation

02-07-2012, 01:58 PM

That is the thing. There is no real choice. In the US there are only 2 real parties. In the UK it is almost exactly the same. It does not matter who people vote for. Having only 2 parties to choose from is laughable. People think they have choice but in reality they don't.

In Serbia there are plenty of parties, but in the end, there's no more difference among them than between your 2, and pretty much for the same reasons :)

ballbasher101

02-07-2012, 07:31 PM

So other parties are banned? Or is it just that the voters choose not to support them?

So if anything is to be laughed at, start with the voters. That means you.

Here is the moral of the story, politicians don't give a damn about the people. It does not matter whether there are 2 or 200 parties to choose from. In the end big businesses pay themselves into the good books of politicians. Having only 2 main parties just makes it easier for big businesses to control politicians. Political parties are mainly funded by the rich. Without funding from big businesses most if not all political parties perish. The rich fund parties so that they influence policies. That is a FACT. Once in a while the public wins but 99% of the time big businesses lobby themselves to victory through sweeteners in the form of campaign funds.

Black Adam

02-08-2012, 09:56 AM

These 3 states clearly don't have access to google. Santorum...lol.

Jimnik

02-08-2012, 06:43 PM

Colorado caucus results:

Santorum 40.3%
Romney 34.9%
Gingrich 12.8%
Paul 11.8%

Jimnik

02-08-2012, 06:44 PM

Minnesota caucus results:

Santorum 44.9%
Paul 27.1%
Romney 16.9%
Gingrich 10.8%

Jimnik

02-08-2012, 06:49 PM

Missouri result is non-binding so doesn't really matter at this point. But Santorum won that too.

Have to say, I'm completely shocked. Don't know where the hell Santorum came from but full credit to the man. He has worked EXTREMELY hard, much harder than any other candidate. Not my first choice but this is still a great story.

That being said, if Rick Santorum becomes the most powerful man on earth, I'm leaving the planet.

yep.. Mayans may have estimated a month too early

buddyholly

02-09-2012, 12:52 PM

I don't see anyone pulling out.

If Santorum wins that will be the only option in the bedroom.

Gagsquet

02-09-2012, 01:12 PM

This guy is frightening. But the more frightening is that he gets so many votes. Poor USA.

fast_clay

02-10-2012, 12:03 AM

it will be last war the US fight for a while, the next one... i dunno who i would even choose to back against that except Paul... they'll just be another in the long history of empires... history says so, just when... you can't abuse a privilege like a couple of towers by punishing your own people and not expect it to end quick... fantasy lands and disinformation are the real cause...

Jimnik

02-10-2012, 05:38 AM

Even Santorum is better than any current European leader. I'm not too worried.

Har-Tru

02-10-2012, 03:27 PM

Even Santorum is better than any current European leader. I'm not too worried.

Are you serious?

Honest question.

ballbasher101

02-10-2012, 04:41 PM

Even Santorum is better than any current European leader. I'm not too worried.

:rolls:. European and American politicians are as useless as each other. Santorum is a religious nut bag. European leaders are so incompetent it is not even funny. Obama is a joke. People got sold on his sweet speeches :haha:. I was not fooled by his act. In The UK we have the useless Cameron in charge. Things are going from bad to worse. All around the world politicians are pissing on people and treating them like trash. We are fed lies and most people are stupid enough to believe in politicians. I hear people talk about freedom and rights :facepalm: I always laugh my ass off :superlol:. Gone is the mantra power to the people. Our job as citizens is to line the pockets of politicians and the pockets of the 2 or 3% of the population that politicians actually represent.

Jimnik

02-10-2012, 06:13 PM

Are you serious?

Honest question.
Perfectly serious.

Honest answer.

Gagsquet

02-11-2012, 03:05 PM

Perfectly serious.

Honest answer.

I feel sorry for you. Honestly.

Har-Tru

02-11-2012, 05:59 PM

Perfectly serious.

Honest answer.

I see...

Jimnik

02-11-2012, 07:29 PM

I feel sorry for you. Honestly.
You live in France? Honestly, I would feel sorry for you too but electing leaders like Chirac and Sarkozy, you kind of brought it on yourself.

I just returned from Ohio and although I didn't watch TV much, or read papers, haven't checked the polls at all, I got the impression Ron Paul has a solid base there, just from occasional chats I had with people.

Jimnik

02-29-2012, 08:41 PM

I like Ohio. :yeah:

shiaben

02-29-2012, 09:34 PM

Romney has the combination of looks and sinister intentions. He's the fit candidate and my prediction is almost coming to life. Just have to see if he can take away presidency from Obama.

Bilbo

02-29-2012, 09:35 PM

Romney has the combination of looks and sinister intentions. He's the fit candidate and my prediction is almost coming to life. Just have to see if he can take away presidency from Obama.

Romney is a war lover. You wouldn't like him.

shiaben

02-29-2012, 09:37 PM

Romney is a war lover. You wouldn't like him.

I definitely wouldn't, but the ones that want him in power for these reasons sure do, unfortunately...

abraxas21

03-01-2012, 06:16 PM

meanwhile kid rock shows one more time that his bigot redneck image isn't just an image.

Amusing how your heart breaks for simple people in one thread, while you make a lame attempt to heap scorn on simple people in the next thread. Too linguistically complex for me to grasp, maybe.

Jimnik

03-01-2012, 07:51 PM

Obama will win the election, and Americans need him to do so. Ron Paul is an ideologue and the other candidates are fake, bigoted, and hypocritical.Yes, what will America do without Obama wasting $1trillion a year.

Filo V.

03-01-2012, 07:55 PM

Well, he's better than Sanitorium, that much is clear.

Jimnik

03-01-2012, 07:58 PM

Ron Paul won't win because he's the only one that discusses the tough decisions government needs to make. The others ramble on the usual political BS game.

Obama and Romney will fight it out but both are the same. A vote for either one is a waste.

Filo V.

03-01-2012, 09:52 PM

Ron Paul says different things than the other Presidential candidates, but that doesn't necessarily make him an significantly better/different candidate.

A vote for Romney is a failure for America. Not saying a vote for Obama is something to be overwhelmingly happy about. But let's get real here.

buddyholly

03-01-2012, 10:50 PM

Obama will win the election, and Americans need him to do so. Ron Paul is an ideologue and the other candidates are fake, bigoted, and hypocritical.

As governor of Massachussets Romney eliminated a $3 billion deficit and introduced universal health care. Romney did something. Obama has talked and talked down to Americans like a like a third rate school teacher that thinks he's a professor - and done absolutely nothing other than guarantee that future generations of Americans will live in a failed nation by raising the deficit to disastrous levels. he sings, OK, though.

But who needs more of that?

Filo V.

03-01-2012, 11:14 PM

Romney has done something, that's for sure. He sure has done a lot :lol:

And those things that he has done for Massachusetts are exactly why Obama leads him in the state by like 15 points, and between 5-10% nationally.

buddyholly

03-01-2012, 11:45 PM

No, it is because Obama just promises that someone else will pay the bills. It works. Who wouldn't like that? His constituents don't care about tomorrow if their credit card works today.

But you sound young enough to be one of those that will eventually be stuck with the bill.

Jimnik

03-02-2012, 12:55 AM

Ron Paul says different things than the other Presidential candidates, but that doesn't necessarily make him an significantly better/different candidate.

A vote for Romney is a failure for America. Not saying a vote for Obama is something to be overwhelmingly happy about. But let's get real here.
OK, let's get real. Romney is a proven businessman. He has real experience balancing budgets, making tough decisions. The only thing Obama ever accomplished is a good speech. Not a Romney fan but his credentials are far more "real" than Obama's.

Ron Paul has a history of doing different things, not just saying different things. He's not a typical republican.

Filo V.

03-02-2012, 01:08 AM

Romney is a proven businessman, again, I agree. He's done a lot of things and proven what type of ability he would bring to the WH in terms of leading America onto a path of sustainable growth, in all areas where the country needs it (which is essentially everything). He is PROVEN, and that is why he's down 10 points nationally to Obama. Because he has done a lot of things, and is proven. So, I actually agree with what is being said here. I don't think Obama is a great candidate.

Ron Paul says/does different things, again, I agree. But being different doesn't necessarily=being good. It just means different. I'm not saying Dr. Paul is good or bad as a candidate, but "different" isn't enough to win elections.

abraxas21

03-02-2012, 01:05 PM

As governor of Massachussets Romney eliminated a $3 billion deficit and introduced universal health care. Romney did something. Obama has talked and talked down to Americans like a like a third rate school teacher that thinks he's a professor - and done absolutely nothing other than guarantee that future generations of Americans will live in a failed nation by raising the deficit to disastrous levels. he sings, OK, though.

But who needs more of that?

of course you'd root for rommy

NID

:lol:

buddyholly

03-02-2012, 01:08 PM

Who said I was rooting for Romney? I was just stating facts. I'm just not impressed by Obama, who hasn't actually done anything yet.

But I am sure you are rooting for Obama. He is the best bet for bringing down Western civilization.

Chase Visa

03-02-2012, 01:09 PM

I loled at Romney introducing universal health care when Obama did exactly the same thing...

buddyholly

03-02-2012, 01:16 PM

I loled at Romney introducing universal health care when Obama did exactly the same thing...

Why didn't you say ''I loled at Obama introducing universal health care when Romney did exactly the same thing''?

Jimnik

03-02-2012, 05:18 PM

Ron Paul says/does different things, again, I agree. But being different doesn't necessarily=being good. It just means different. I'm not saying Dr. Paul is good or bad as a candidate, but "different" isn't enough to win elections.
But you correctly pointed out speaking differently doesn't imply acting differently. I was merely responding to that point. Whether you agree with Dr Paul or not is another matter.

But I am sure you are rooting for Obama. He is the best bet for bringing down Western civilization.
Pray tell. What has he done to bring down your notion of civilization?

fast_clay

03-02-2012, 11:35 PM

OK, let's get real. Romney is a proven businessman. He has real experience balancing budgets, making tough decisions. The only thing Obama ever accomplished is a good speech. Not a Romney fan but his credentials are far more "real" than Obama's.

Ron Paul has a history of doing different things, not just saying different things. He's not a typical republican.

the good doctor is actually friendly with romney and acknowledges his viewpoints, and is probably the only guy in the republican race that he is that open to... paul is a third party candidate pimped out in republican colours, a sheep running with the wolves and doing quite well at it imo...

romney and the republicans will spew though when the good doctor opts out and has the libertarian party write him in...

Ron Paul says/does different things, again, I agree. But being different doesn't necessarily=being good. It just means different. I'm not saying Dr. Paul is good or bad as a candidate, but "different" isn't enough to win elections.

:spit: cutting 1 trillion in spending in the first year alone would be great for your country... sends a great signal to the markets that US is finally getting real...

11 of 12 aircraft carriers in the world are U.S... 6 of them hang off the persian coastlines, and rotate in shift with the other 5 that hang off the coast of the states... why is that i wonder...? a return to pre-WWII economics won't hurt the USA one bit and would set a great example of how a world power should behave...

you need to educate yourself on what made the U.S. a great nation - and it was great, it's workers the freest and wealthiest... your constitution is a great book and set the standard... too bad you've let it become toilet paper...

this is why the good doctor is indeed great...

abraxas21

03-02-2012, 11:44 PM

the good doctor is actually friendly with romney and acknowledges his viewpoints, and is probably the only guy in the republican race that he is that open to... paul is a third party candidate pimped out in republican colours, a sheep running with the wolves and doing quite well at it imo...

romney and the republicans will spew though when the good doctor opts out and has the libertarian party write him in...

if paul had cojones, he'd be running as a libertarian right now.

then again, it doesn't matter either way. he stands no chance regardless of the party.

Pirata.

03-03-2012, 02:22 AM

Paultards :facepalm:

Jimnik

03-03-2012, 02:42 AM

Pirata. :facepalm: :facepalm:

Jimnik

03-03-2012, 02:47 AM

Pray tell. What has he done to bring down your notion of civilization?
Are you really South African? Just curious.

the good doctor is actually friendly with romney and acknowledges his viewpoints, and is probably the only guy in the republican race that he is that open to... paul is a third party candidate pimped out in republican colours, a sheep running with the wolves and doing quite well at it imo...

romney and the republicans will spew though when the good doctor opts out and has the libertarian party write him in...
Hard to tell whether he respects Gingrich or Romney more but I think he prefers them both to Obama. Santorum is a very different matter.

if paul had cojones, he'd be running as a libertarian right now.

then again, it doesn't matter either way. he stands no chance regardless of the party.
You need a brain, not cojones, to win an election.

abraxas21

03-03-2012, 02:52 AM

You need a brain, not cojones, to win an election.

the message is that paul doesn't have the cojones to run in the libertarian party instead of the republican one.

that said, i'm not too sure about how much brains are needed either. i mean, rommy believes in magic underpants for crying out loud

fast_clay

03-03-2012, 04:12 AM

Paultards :facepalm:

educate yourself about the world you live in

step 1: stop believing what the box with the pictures keeps telling you

buddyholly

03-03-2012, 01:48 PM

Pray tell. What has he done to bring down your notion of civilization?

Taking the US to debt levels that will eventually make what is happening now in Europe seem like a financial paradise.

Since it is fairly evident that due to the bigotry of the various religious cults, it is impossible for an out atheist to run for office in the US, are you saying that I am doomed to rooting for no-one in my lifetime?
Given my beliefs you could equally have said ''You think MTF's #1 atheist roots for Obama? Now I've heard it all."

But thanks for awarding me the MTF atheist title. From some of the posts I have seen here, I am not sure if I deserve it.

buddyholly

03-03-2012, 01:59 PM

that said, i'm not too sure about how much brains are needed either. i mean, rommy believes in magic underpants for crying out loud

Why would you say such a thing when Christians worship imaginary friends, and some branches of the cult even believe in eating their gods on a regular basis?

Don't you see the irony in that?

buddyholly

03-03-2012, 02:01 PM

educate yourself about the world you live in

step 1: stop believing what the box with the pictures keeps telling you

From what I remember, pirata would claim that favouring anyone other than Obama is a sure sign of racism.

Garson007

03-03-2012, 03:27 PM

Are you really South African? Just curious.
Yes. My father is actually a bit of a libertarian like yourself.

Taking the US to debt levels that will eventually make what is happening now in Europe seem like a financial paradise.
Keynesian economics has worked in the past. What make you think spending extra money results in less returns?

buddyholly

03-03-2012, 05:36 PM

Keynesian economics has worked in the past. What make you think spending extra money results in less returns?

I can't think of any situation, from personal to national, where getting into debt from which you can never recover would be a good thing.

Spending extra money is one thing, but if you have to go ever deeper in debt to get the extra money, then maybe it is not the answer.

Har-Tru

03-03-2012, 06:09 PM

the message is that paul doesn't have the cojones to run in the libertarian party instead of the republican one.

that said, i'm not too sure about how much brains are needed either. i mean, rommy believes in magic underpants for crying out loud

Whereas you believe in virgin births, strolls on water, fish transfiguration, instantaneous healing and resurrection from the dead, among others.

See the irony? Don't worry, I don't expect you to.

Jimnik

03-03-2012, 10:16 PM

Since it is fairly evident that due to the bigotry of the various religious cults, it is impossible for an out atheist to run for office in the US, are you saying that I am doomed to rooting for no-one in my lifetime?
Given my beliefs you could equally have said ''You think MTF's #1 atheist roots for Obama? Now I've heard it all."

But thanks for awarding me the MTF atheist title. From some of the posts I have seen here, I am not sure if I deserve it.

Why would you say such a thing when Christians worship imaginary friends, and some branches of the cult even believe in eating their gods on a regular basis?

Don't you see the irony in that?
Sounds like MTF's #1 atheist to me. But I'd sure love to know who you think is above you in the anti-religion rankings.

Jimnik

03-03-2012, 10:17 PM

Yes. My father is actually a bit of a libertarian like yourself.
Is your father right-wing? He's probably conservative, not libertarian.

Garson007

03-03-2012, 11:20 PM

I can't think of any situation, from personal to national, where getting into debt from which you can never recover would be a good thing.
That's quite a bold statement. I agree that too much pork exists within the budget, but that's not Obama's fault. A major function of a government in a capitalist society is to invest in ramping up production and promoting job growth.

Is your father right-wing? He's probably conservative, not libertarian.
He's a small government liberal. His fiscal opinions are pretty conservative (i.e. economic right, capitalist, etc), but he believes in promoting liberal rights over authoritarianism. He's pretty much a libertarian, which yes I'd call right-wing since right/left to me is purely a consideration of fiscal issues. That's not to say he agrees with greed. He hates greed as much as the next guy.

Jimnik

03-04-2012, 12:28 AM

He's a small government liberal. His fiscal opinions are pretty conservative (i.e. economic right, capitalist, etc), but he believes in promoting liberal rights over authoritarianism. He's pretty much a libertarian, which yes I'd call right-wing since right/left to me is purely a consideration of fiscal issues. That's not to say he agrees with greed. He hates greed as much as the next guy.
Sounds like a conservative to me.

The right spends just as recklessly as the left - there is no fiscal difference. Whether you're a centre-left liberal, a centre-right conservative, an extreme left socialist or an extreme right fascist, you're going to spend whatever you think is necessary, regardless of how much money is available.

You might want to check the origins of right/left terminology before carelessly labeling libertarians right-wing. Either that or you've misunderstood the definition of libertarianism.

buddyholly

03-04-2012, 02:46 AM

Sounds like MTF's #1 atheist to me. But I'd sure love to know who you think is above you in the anti-religion rankings.

No-one I hope. Otherwise I would be less than fully committed. I would prefer ''pro-atheist'' to anti-religion'' though.

Mountaindewslave

03-04-2012, 07:05 AM

Ron Paul 2012!!!! Liberty and the Constitution!

was at a rally of his in SPringfield, Virginia this last week and it was awesome.

he is one of the only honest politicians left in America (at least running for President) who is not bribed by corporate America!!

I hope he kicks some serious ass on Super Tuesday because I definitely will be voting for him.

it's goes a long way, a man who is willing to make sure people have their freedoms and liberties, who sticks by the COnstitution, who wants to stop America going to war all the time, and who wants to toughen up on our borders which have gotten way out of hand.

if you want someone you can trust in office who's willing to work for the people and not for himself or Wallstreet, vote Ron Paul 2012!!! :worship: :worship: :worship: :D :D :D

fast_clay

03-04-2012, 08:28 PM

Ron Paul 2012!!!! Liberty and the Constitution!

was at a rally of his in SPringfield, Virginia this last week and it was awesome.

he is one of the only honest politicians left in America (at least running for President) who is not bribed by corporate America!!

I hope he kicks some serious ass on Super Tuesday because I definitely will be voting for him.

it's goes a long way, a man who is willing to make sure people have their freedoms and liberties, who sticks by the COnstitution, who wants to stop America going to war all the time, and who wants to toughen up on our borders which have gotten way out of hand.

if you want someone you can trust in office who's willing to work for the people and not for himself or Wallstreet, vote Ron Paul 2012!!! :worship: :worship: :worship: :D :D :D

yes, absolutely.... he is so principled it is not even funny...

and, you know, the wonderful irony about him not being a tool of corporate america is that doesn't mean he is the enemy of corporate america - in fact, a paul reign would prove to be a throwback to a time in the US where both big and small business thrived... the enemy of the US military-industrial complex he is indeed however, and no one should ever confuse the two...

a paul rally afterparty i have often thought would be a great place for a good time :lol:... the percentage of open minded people, wool removed from their eyes and with the ability to see the subversive would no doubt make for a great atmosphere...

the way i see it chances are romney is gonna take a big chunk of the 10 states across the board, gingrich likely to take georgia, santorum just miiiiiight take one of the southern states and paul could score his first only primary win in north dakota. anyone disagree?

Filo V.

03-06-2012, 01:20 PM

Hopefully Rick takes Ohio. I don't want this charade to end. Rick needs to take Ohio or the inevitability factor will start kicking in. It's too bad he's not on ballot in my state of Virginia because I am SURE he would win here.

Bilbo

03-06-2012, 04:55 PM

Romney would attack Iran.

Told ya he's a war monkey.

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 09:45 PM

Who would you vote for Bilbo?

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 10:14 PM

alrighty, here we go, super tuesday is upon us!

the way i see it chances are romney is gonna take a big chunk of the 10 states across the board, gingrich likely to take georgia, santorum just miiiiiight take one of the southern states and paul could score his first only primary win in north dakota. anyone disagree?
Sounds about right.

He'll need big improvements across the board. Good news is, so far, he's improved in every state. Hope it continues.

abraxas21

03-06-2012, 10:43 PM

do people really think ron paul has any chance at all?

MTF never ceases to amaze

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 10:54 PM

Your insight abraxas never ceases to amaze.

Filo V.

03-06-2012, 10:58 PM

Insight? Or basic reality?

Ron Paul is irrelevant unless he runs as a third party candidate.

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 11:07 PM

Of course the good doctor was never going to win, just like Ferrero, Gonzalez and Safin were never going to win Wimbledon. Doesn't mean I stop supporting them.

I never even wanted him to run as republican candidate. Like 2008, the goal is to win publicity, not the nomination.

Filo V.

03-06-2012, 11:09 PM

That's good, I respect that. But that means your criticism against what our Chilean friend said really has no basis in anything. What he said was valid......at least the meaning behind it, which is, Ron Paul has zero shot at the election and is ultimately irrelevant right now.

But he does do a better job than anyone at galvanizing his base. Definitely deserves credit for that.

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 11:12 PM

My only criticism of you and our Chilean friend is that you're both idiots who obviously can't read.

No-one on this forum said Ron Paul would ever win the republican primary. You can do a search of my posts if you like.

Filo V.

03-06-2012, 11:17 PM

I never said you did say that. What I said and what is being implied is that Ron Paul is pretty much irrelevant. Which he is, until further notice.

Jimnik

03-06-2012, 11:21 PM

By that logic, every candidate is irrelevant besides Romney.

Stating the obvious while putting words in other people's mouths is idiotic.

Don't know why I'm even wasting my time with this.

Stensland

03-06-2012, 11:49 PM

cnn international better start its coverage soon. i'm getting politically dehydrated here. btw i am rooting for paul, jimmy, it has little to do with his political ideas though. he just seems like the last stand-up guy ou there. go doc!

fast_clay

03-07-2012, 12:24 AM

there are good reasons why North Dakota would back Paul fully today - those are reasons of sound finance, and why North Dakota was by far the least hurt state in the US during the global financial meltdown... they know for a fact he has the tools...

fast_clay

03-07-2012, 01:04 AM

My only criticism of you and our Chilean friend is that you're both idiots who obviously can't read.

:lol:

cnn international better start its coverage soon. i'm getting politically dehydrated here. btw i am rooting for paul, jimmy, it has little to do with his political ideas though. he just seems like the last stand-up guy ou there. go doc!

Santorum has won Tennessee, Oklahoma and is leading Ohio and North Dakota.

Romney has won Virginia, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Gingrich has won Georgia with 48% of the vote to 23% for Romney and 21% for Santorum.

If these results hold up, you'd have to venture it's pretty much back to square one. Santorum would still be the conservatives' candidate. Romney would still be in the position of having to defend why he cannot win Southern states and why he cannot win with blue collar, working class, conservative voters on any consistent basis. Gingrich would be able to tout himself as the anti-Romney candidate and set himself to clean up the upcoming primaries throughout the South.

Hopefully Rick wins Ohio!!! :cheerleader:

abraxas21

03-07-2012, 03:26 AM

By that logic, every candidate is irrelevant besides Romney.

Stating the obvious while putting words in other people's mouths is idiotic.

Don't know why I'm even wasting my time with this.

ron paul fans are an intriguing lot.

it sure takes a pretty high degree of disconnection from reality to think that he'd do a good job running a country. then again, looking at the other candidates one kind of gets the point of the depressing state of affairs of the american political spectrum...

in any case, i guess that most yanks see a guy like paul and think to themselves "yeah, interesting fella" because he kind of evokes the principles of opportunities and free market most white americans are so fond of (in theory of course). then again, when it comes to think about him seriously, the vote por paul is more like "thanks but no thanks". as whacky as some americans are, they're still too conservative to go for paul.

i even think the racism thing isn't that big of a deal for most yanks. after all, who hasn't said something racist at least once, right?? and if he can get the gvt to stop drilling my pockets avoid financing the poorest (most of them blacks and latinos anyway), i'll be able to buy more i pods and a get a bigger mortage. only then i'll be happy... or maybe only happier.. who knows?

Bilbo

03-07-2012, 12:12 PM

Who would you vote for Bilbo?

Anyone but Romney.

buddyholly

03-07-2012, 12:57 PM

it sure takes a pretty high degree of disconnection from reality to think that he'd do a good job running a country. then again, looking at the other candidates one kind of gets the point of the depressing state of affairs of the american political spectrum...

He gets an A+ for running his personal estate.
He gets an A+ for running a business.
He gets an A for running Massachussets (6th in the nation in personal income).

What makes you think he could not transfer that management skill to a country?

Jimnik

03-07-2012, 06:20 PM

SUPER TUESDAY FULL RESULTS

Georgia
Gingrich 47%
Romney 26%
Santorum 20%
Paul 6.5%

Ohio
Romney 38%
Santorum 37%
Gingrich 15%
Paul 9%

Tennessee
Santorum 37%
Romney 28%
Gingrich 24%
Paul 9%

Oklahoma
Santorum 34%
Romney 28%
Gingrich 28%
Paul 9.5%

Virginia
Romney 60%
Paul 40%

Massachusetts
Romney 72%
Santorum 12%
Paul 9.5%
Gingrich 4.5%

Vermont
Romney 40%
Paul 25%
Santorum 24%
Gingrich 8%

Idaho
Romney 62%
Santorum 18%
Paul 18%
Gingrich 2%

Alaska
Romney 32%
Santorum 29%
Paul 24%
Gingrich 14%

North Dakota
Santorum 40%
Paul 28%
Romney 24%
Gingrich 8.5%

Jimnik

03-07-2012, 06:28 PM

btw i am rooting for paul, jimmy, it has little to do with his political ideas though. he just seems like the last stand-up guy ou there. go doc!
:eek: :speakles: :eek:

One small step for Rainy, one giant leap for libertarianism. This might be the greatest day of my life.

look Jim... look... he is coming towards the light...

walk Rrrainer, keep walking towards the light... bathe in its goodness... rejuvinate your soul...
We're getting there, we're getting there. Slowly but surely, if we work together, we can bring him back from the dark side. I know there's good in him, I can feel it. The emperor hasn't driven it from him fully.

ron paul fans are an intriguing lot.

it sure takes a pretty high degree of disconnection from reality to think that he'd do a good job running a country. then again, looking at the other candidates one kind of gets the point of the depressing state of affairs of the american political spectrum...

in any case, i guess that most yanks see a guy like paul and think to themselves "yeah, interesting fella" because he kind of evokes the principles of opportunities and free market most white americans are so fond of (in theory of course). then again, when it comes to think about him seriously, the vote por paul is more like "thanks but no thanks". as whacky as some americans are, they're still too conservative to go for paul.

i even think the racism thing isn't that big of a deal for most yanks. after all, who hasn't said something racist at least once, right?? and if he can get the gvt to stop drilling my pockets avoid financing the poorest (most of them blacks and latinos anyway), i'll be able to buy more i pods and a get a bigger mortage. only then i'll be happy... or maybe only happier.. who knows?
:haha: That's what I love about you abraxas. You've got a ... "personality".

Anyone but Romney.
Seriously? If it's about war Gingrich and Santorum are as bad as Romney.

Got to be RON PAUL all the way. :rocker2:

Johnny Groove

03-07-2012, 06:30 PM

All Super Tuesday showed is that the Republicans are as divided as ever.

Improved everywhere from 2008, except stupid Idaho. Definitely the biggest blow of the night. In 21 states, that's the first time he's gone backwards. Alaska was disappointing too.

Jimnik

03-07-2012, 06:40 PM

All Super Tuesday showed is that the Republicans are as divided as ever.

Romney of course will end up as the nominee.
Media are overplaying the importance of "getting behind one candidate". In 2008 the Democrats were more divided than the Republicans.

Obama is the favourite but whoever gets nominated will run him close.

Filo V.

03-07-2012, 06:48 PM

In 2008 people were actually excited about Barack and Hillary. There was enthusiasm in the air regarding both, both were seen as change candidates, things were going to get better with them at the helm. That isn't the same in 2012. Mitt Romney will win by DEFAULT only but what's clear is that he isn't really well received. Even in Ohio, a majority of Republican voters said that Romney doesn't share their values. He's only going to be the nominee because he's not completely batshit crazy like Santorum and Gingrich.

And since both Rick and Newt has something to hang their hats on from Super Tuesday, this charade will last all the way through to the convention. Barack is so far in the drivers seat right now, especially if the housing numbers and overall economy continue improving. Republicans could have attacked Barack on the soaring gas prices but since most of them are in bed with the big oil corporations who are shitting people out of money, they don't even have that to run on :lol:

Unless the economy takes a drastic step in the wrong direction, the negativity surrounding the entire Republican nomination process, low voter turnouts, lack of credibility and sincerity and overall slickster-vibe that most see out of Romney, and the belief from most Republicans that Romney isn't a real conservative all mean whoever the Romney is a severe underdog come November.

Bilbo

03-07-2012, 06:59 PM

Seriously? If it's about war Gingrich and Santorum are as bad as Romney.

Got to be RON PAUL all the way. :rocker2:

All Republicans are war monkeys except Ron Paul.

emotion

03-07-2012, 07:09 PM

If Gingrich would just drop out and endorse Santorum... :sad:

Filo V.

03-07-2012, 07:14 PM

I know. I so much wish he would do it, but he won't because he has an agenda, which is to sabotage the Republican party. Also, Southern and Midwestern states are coming up. This is Newt's territory coming up now and if he cleans house, he can re-position himself as the anti-Romney candidate. Newt is the true wildcard here because he's a horrible person, genuinely. And with the way the Republican base has gone out of their way to shove Newt out of the way, be sure he is going to do everything he can to give them a taste of their own medicine.

abraxas21

03-07-2012, 07:44 PM

He gets an A+ for running his personal estate.
He gets an A+ for running a business.
He gets an A for running Massachussets (6th in the nation in personal income).

What makes you think he could not transfer that management skill to a country?

interesting. how many A's does he get for running his i-phone?

Stensland

03-07-2012, 10:44 PM

you guys got me all wrong over the last couple of years. ;)

i never disliked paul. he's refreshing in many ways, if i had the chance to talk to one single politician for an hour, i'd choose the doc. instantly. it's some (a lot) of his policies i can't get on board with. but then again, on many issues walls have recently been crumbling down, like the whole central bank complex. as of now, i'm with paul on this one. so i guess i am indeed moving closer to libertarian principles, nonetheless major roadblocks will eventually keep me from voting libertarian.

fast_clay

03-07-2012, 11:45 PM

you guys got me all wrong over the last couple of years. ;)

i never disliked paul. he's refreshing in many ways, if i had the chance to talk to one single politician for an hour, i'd choose the doc. instantly. it's some (a lot) of his policies i can't get on board with. but then again, on many issues walls have recently been crumbling down, like the whole central bank complex. as of now, i'm with paul on this one. so i guess i am indeed moving closer to libertarian principles, nonetheless major roadblocks will eventually keep me from voting libertarian.

i was a lefty, not a staunch lefty though... but, i think it is clear that many western democracies, in order to function properly, need to adopt some libertarian principles, as you say... when the right and left appear as one, well, it just has to be that way imo - it is probably the most logical way of setting them apart in the future...

fast_clay

03-07-2012, 11:53 PM

i'm of the opinion that it is better for the republicans that the gop race goes all the way to the convention... sure, they will cloak and dagger one another all the way, but it will also sharpen their arguments - and they'll need that when it comes time to debate obama... they'll need their game to be silky smooth and they'll need to know it thoroughly... as i watched santorum's speech yesterday, you can tell he is angling for the paulite vote by moving his point of contentions toward the sound economics arguments paul preaches...

and this can't be a bad thing... at all...

buddyholly

03-08-2012, 03:56 AM

interesting. how many A's does he get for running his i-phone?

Same as Obama for running his Blackberry.

Actually, I think Romney would have people to do the menial tasks for him. iPhones are for the masses.

Johnny Groove

03-08-2012, 01:56 PM

In 2008 people were actually excited about Barack and Hillary. There was enthusiasm in the air regarding both, both were seen as change candidates, things were going to get better with them at the helm. That isn't the same in 2012. Mitt Romney will win by DEFAULT only but what's clear is that he isn't really well received. Even in Ohio, a majority of Republican voters said that Romney doesn't share their values. He's only going to be the nominee because he's not completely batshit crazy like Santorum and Gingrich.

And since both Rick and Newt has something to hang their hats on from Super Tuesday, this charade will last all the way through to the convention. Barack is so far in the drivers seat right now, especially if the housing numbers and overall economy continue improving. Republicans could have attacked Barack on the soaring gas prices but since most of them are in bed with the big oil corporations who are shitting people out of money, they don't even have that to run on :lol:

Unless the economy takes a drastic step in the wrong direction, the negativity surrounding the entire Republican nomination process, low voter turnouts, lack of credibility and sincerity and overall slickster-vibe that most see out of Romney, and the belief from most Republicans that Romney isn't a real conservative all mean whoever the Romney is a severe underdog come November.

This is the number one thing about Romney that turns me off. He just (with apologies to Richard Nixon) seems like a crook, untrustworthy. He also seems not to have a connect with the common man. He seems like just another big-wig 1% Republican out to screw over the middle class.

Obama appeals more to the common man and his public speaking skills shit on Romney's. I actually think that Santorum would have a better shot in the general election vs. Obama than Romney, but no way Santorum wins the primary.

It is about matchups :p

Obama= Nadal, Romney= Federer, Santorum= Murray :p

Filo V.

03-08-2012, 02:08 PM

Romney will be destroyed in debates by Obama, since he WILL NOT be able to run on his record in that match-up. Both Newt and Rick can beat Obama in debates and, in my eyes, are overall more intelligent than Romney. Romney is just too wooden and unnatural in his appearance, nothing he does inspires and he will lack the spontaneity and creativity to attract voters in a match-up with Obama. And he definitely doesn't appeal to the common man because he isn't one, never was, and has no idea what that life is like.........he IS a slickster, hence that's the aura he gives off. He's a spoonfed daddy's boy.

buddyholly

03-08-2012, 03:40 PM

I can't support any of them, but to call Romney a spoon-fed daddy's boy does not make sense to me. His skill at business is well known.

But what really surprises me is that you seem to have a liking for a man that equates gay sex with man-on-dog sex. And does not think homosexual perverts should be allowed to marry. What's with that?

Tommy_Vercetti

03-08-2012, 05:46 PM

Obama was absolute crap in every debate he has ever had. It's only because of the willful bias of the press that his performances have been saved.

Personally, I hope Romney decides to make Obama's justice department one of his primary targets. There's absolutely no excuse for Eric Holder, King and some of the others in the DOJ to still be working. It's absolutely despicable that they were put there in the first place, but beyond any understanding that they are still there.

emotion

03-08-2012, 06:06 PM

This is the number one thing about Romney that turns me off. He just (with apologies to Richard Nixon) seems like a crook, untrustworthy. He also seems not to have a connect with the common man. He seems like just another big-wig 1% Republican out to screw over the middle class.

Obama appeals more to the common man and his public speaking skills shit on Romney's. I actually think that Santorum would have a better shot in the general election vs. Obama than Romney, but no way Santorum wins the primary.

It is about matchups :p

Obama= Nadal, Romney= Federer, Santorum= Murray :p

Don't make Obama Nadal please, may have to become a conservative

Biden is a better debater than Obama, but Obama is good

emotion

03-08-2012, 06:07 PM

Romney will be destroyed in debates by Obama, since he WILL NOT be able to run on his record in that match-up. Both Newt and Rick can beat Obama in debates and, in my eyes, are overall more intelligent than Romney. Romney is just too wooden and unnatural in his appearance, nothing he does inspires and he will lack the spontaneity and creativity to attract voters in a match-up with Obama. And he definitely doesn't appeal to the common man because he isn't one, never was, and has no idea what that life is like.........he IS a slickster, hence that's the aura he gives off. He's a spoonfed daddy's boy.

Santorum is a worse debater than Romney IMO, and I think Romney is very smart, just not good with people. Gingrich is both the smartest and best debater, but has 0 shot.

Filo V.

03-08-2012, 06:38 PM

I can't support any of them, but to call Romney a spoon-fed daddy's boy does not make sense to me. His skill at business is well known.

But what really surprises me is that you seem to have a liking for a man that equates gay sex with man-on-dog sex. And does not think homosexual perverts should be allowed to marry. What's with that?

I hate Sanitorium, he's a loser and immoral, but I don't consider him an idiot. Just misguided, foolish and bigoted beyond the word bigoted. And Romney's skill at being a slickster is definitely well known, indeed.

Filo V.

03-08-2012, 06:48 PM

Santorum is a worse debater than Romney IMOI think Santorum knows how to play to his base. That's the big difference, because I don't think he's a great debater and I don't think he's light on his feet (basically, he's easily thrown off kilter), but he knows what to say and when to say it. He knows how to stoke the anti-Obama flames. Romney gives a lot of answers that sound good. He's a good soundbite debater. But he's not someone who can play to his base. He can't really do damage in a debate. It's sort of like his entire presence. It looks good, it sounds good. But there isn't a lot there when you investigate deeper.

Gingrich is both the smartest and best debater, but has 0 shot.RP is smarter than Gingrich by far. I think Santorum is smarter than Gingrich. Newt is the smartest political mind of the four by a WIDE margin, though. He knows the political game inside-out. He knows how to win a debate and win an election where his tactics work. He knows how to make his case heard and not get thrown off kilter, unlike Santorum. But he's way too unlikable to ever win presidency. He's boorish, insensitive and a loud mouth. His tactics work with hard-right conservatives and with Southerners but that's really it.

Santorum is softer and can somewhat hide his crazy. That gives him an edge on Gingrich nationally.

Jimnik

03-08-2012, 11:59 PM

Difficult to say who matches up better against Obama. Romney is in the lead thanks to money, good organization and an effective ad campaign. Santorum is 2nd thanks to pure grit and determination. He visited more counties and shook more hands than all the other candidates put together. If it purely came down to issues, Gingrich and Paul would win, but it never does. It's all about public image and perception.

I think Romney's extra cash and more liberal views will win over more independents than Santorum. Neither of them will beat Obama in a h2h debate.

fast_clay

03-09-2012, 01:06 AM

Difficult to say who matches up better against Obama. Romney is in the lead thanks to money, good organization and an effective ad campaign. Santorum is 2nd thanks to pure grit and determination. He visited more counties and shook more hands than all the other candidates put together. If it purely came down to issues, Gingrich and Paul would win, but it never does. It's all about public image and perception.

I think Romney's extra cash and more liberal views will win over more independents than Santorum. Neither of them will beat Obama in a h2h debate.

romney's money is what will ultimately hurt the republicans... he's odds on to get the nod, but he'll spit and stutter at the very moment he'll need to make some dirt stick in a debate vs obama... outside of the good doctor, newt would go head to head with obama very well... a very canny old bucket of sh!t this guy... doesn't mind a bit of the old trench warfare... is why his hair looks like a hard polystyrene helmet baked 2 hrs at 200'c i guess... ready for battle

Black Adam

03-09-2012, 01:07 AM

I can't support any of them, but to call Romney a spoon-fed daddy's boy does not make sense to me. His skill at business is well known.

But what really surprises me is that you seem to have a liking for a man that equates gay sex with man-on-dog sex. And does not think homosexual perverts should be allowed to marry. What's with that?
It gets the bible belt folks going.

fast_clay

03-10-2012, 06:04 AM

Jim, this is brutal... wait till the fangs come out

oGhcngTNMoM

emotion

03-12-2012, 06:15 PM

While Alabama is tight and he is really struggling in Mississippi, Santorum is reasserting himself nationally
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57395194-503544/poll-most-gop-voters-expect-romney-nomination/

Jimnik

03-13-2012, 01:10 AM

Jim, this is brutal... wait till the fangs come out

oGhcngTNMoM
Mate, I'm so glad you introduced me to this Bill Still character. I've got to start following the LP debates more closely.

Even the smallest parties are never 100% united but no matter how awkward things get, I'm definitely voting for this party. I'm sick of the republican christian conservative bloc. Bill Still, no matter how over the top he goes (god bless him btw) is the one politician I agree with even more than Ron Paul.

While Alabama is tight and he is really struggling in Mississippi, Santorum is reasserting himself nationally
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57395194-503544/poll-most-gop-voters-expect-romney-nomination/
I've changed my mind about Santorum. I think he'd be just as bad, if not worse, than Obama. He's the perfect example of the gap between right-wing conservatism and libertarianism.

I'm so pissed off with Kansas right now. I knew Santorum would win but how the hell did he get such a landslide? Never knew how retarded Kansan republicans could be.

Filo V.

03-13-2012, 01:34 AM

A Sanitorium presidency is a serious threat to the world on every single parameter. All parameters are under threat with him as president. The man is SCARY. And the fact is, he's really the Republican candidate Republicans/conservatives like the most. Hell, he's even receiving a fair bit of Democratic vote in these primaries.

All of this with the utter barbaric shit this man has said and done really says a lot about what type of country America is. That's the reality. I know most Americans don't support him, but the fact this man has any voice whatsoever speaks wonders.

Mjau!

03-14-2012, 12:04 AM

Jim, this is brutal... wait till the fangs come out

oGhcngTNMoM

“It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers, especially the Agricultural and Religious press, as will oppose the Greenback issue of paper money and that you will also withhold patronage from all applicants (for loans) who are not willing to oppose the government issue of money…To repel the act creating bank notes, or to restore to circulation the government issue of money will be to provide the people with money and will therefore seriously affect our individual profits as bankers and lenders. See your congressman at once and engage him to support us, that we may control legislation.”
– James Buel, American Bankers Association, 1877

“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press….They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. “An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.”
- Oscar Callaway, U.S. Congressman, 1917

“These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and the columns in those papers to club into submission or drive out of office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government.”
– President Theodore Roosevelt as reported in the New York Times, March 27th, 1922

“This warning of Theodore Roosevelt has as much timelessness today, for the real menace to our republic is this invisible government which spreads its tentacles like a giant octopus and sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection…To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cat’s-paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country.”
– John Hylan, Mayor of New York City, quoted in the New York Times, 1922

orangehat

03-14-2012, 03:21 AM

Santorum projected to win Alabama.

Looks like he will win Mississippi too.

Filo V.

03-14-2012, 06:00 AM

Santorum has won both Alabama and Mississippi tonight. This is a big deal on several levels. First of all, it means Santorum is OFFICIALLY the unquestioned anti-Romney candidate. What does that mean for Newt? He'll stay in the race, because at this point, he has nothing to lose really. For him, pressure is totally off. He has no shot. So now, expect the gloves to come completely off and Newt to do whatever the hell he wants. This has always been about attention for Newt and making himself relevant again, and making money, and he's going to succeed on both accounts.

However, it gives Santorum the power to essentially force Newt out of the race. To shame Newt from competing further. The pressure will be completely on Gingrich to drop out, and you know who dreads that the most? Mitt Romney, of course. Delete Gingrich out of the race, and Romney has a SIGNIFICANTLY tougher road ahead of him going forward.

Secondly, based on the polling reports, voters of Santorum are more committed than voters of Romney. We are seeing an enthusiasm gap, and it isn't pretty for Mitt Romney. Mitt is unlikable. Republican voters know he's the man with the biggest opportunity to defeat Obama, but they just cannot bring themselves to vote for the man. Mitt's CHEESY GRITS, howdy ya'll mantra backfired on him in a big way, not just in the South, but nationally. Mitt's unnaturalness and overall big money Massachusetts slickster aura is KILLING him and will prevent him from winning the nomination easily, and will also damage his chances of defeating Obama in November should be become the nominee for Republicans. This is definitely going all the way to the convention in the summer and Romney is looking increasingly less likely to attain the full delegate count needed to win the nomination outright. The chance of a brokered convention get more real the longer this nomination process continues. And the harder Santorum and Romney hit one another, the cleaner Obama looks at the end of the day. Ultimately, it's OBAMA who is winning right now and is the obvious favorite to be reelected.

Thirdly, we now have a set precedent. Santorum has won Kansas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. Gingrich won his home state of Georgia and South Carolina. Romney has one true win in the South, and that's Florida, which has a different DNA than virtually every other state in the South. And it was Gingrich, not Romney, who won conservative/very conservative voters on the balance in Florida. Romney dominated in the bigger cities, such as Miami and Orlando, which is also another trend that has remained consistent. Romney wins the cities but CANNOT win with rural voters. Romney is relying on moderates and more liberal Republicans to pull him though, and that simply is not the base of the party. Romney cannot win in the South. Romney cannot connect with the base of the Republican party. Romney cannot convince America he understands the struggles of every-day citizens and their families. Mitt Romney is an unbelievably weak candidate, and the Republican bigwigs in Washington know it. Things are going to get very interesting these next few weeks. I really hope Newt does drop out, because then things will REALLY get tough on Willard.

Well, he got the global warming right, as far as what causes it.
Over earth's history 99.9999999999% of climate variation has been caused by the sun, yet we are now asked to ignore that possibility in favour of enriching Gore and his disciples in the UN, and maintaining the scientific credentials of the ''global warming is what keeps us in our university jobs'' bunch of data manipulators.

Honestly, as an American, I'm embarrassed. It says so, so much about the type of country this is that people like Rick Santorum are at all relevant.

Filo V.

03-14-2012, 02:37 PM

Well, he got the global warming right, as far as what causes it.Really, he got global warming right? He says there isn't any issue of global warming. That's not right at all; that's dangerously ignorant.

buddyholly

03-14-2012, 02:42 PM

I apparently don't follow him as close as you. But if he says the global warming causes are not settled then he got it right, in the sense that we should stop lining the pockets of Gore and his cronies with billions of dollars obtained from the nonsense about carbon dioxide, when nobody knows whether it is an issue in climate change.

fast_clay

03-14-2012, 02:45 PM

i would think paul will take it to the convention then throw his weight behind romney, that is my gut feeling..

emotion

03-14-2012, 03:12 PM

I apparently don't follow him as close as you. But if he says the global warming causes are not settled then he got it right, in the sense that we should stop lining the pockets of Gore and his cronies with billions of dollars obtained from the nonsense about carbon dioxide, when nobody knows whether it is an issue in climate change.

I love this nomination process. If Santorum wins it, surely it would take a truly awful Obama gaffe to lose. On the other hand, thought of actual Santorum presidency is horrifying.

Har-Tru

03-14-2012, 06:56 PM

Well, he got the global warming right, as far as what causes it.
Over earth's history 99.9999999999% of climate variation has been caused by the sun, yet we are now asked to ignore that possibility in favour of enriching Gore and his disciples in the UN, and maintaining the scientific credentials of the ''global warming is what keeps us in our university jobs'' bunch of data manipulators.

Leaving aside the talk about its causes, it is an unequivocal, universally accepted fact that the earth's temperature is increasing. But Rick Santorum denies this, saying he doesn't believe it and calling it a hoax. He uses arguments such as: "We were put on this Earth as creatures of God to have dominion over the Earth, to use it wisely and steward it wisely, but for our benefit not for the Earth's benefit."

That being said, I think you underestimate the volume and consistence of the scientific data in support of the arguments that lead back to human activities as the main cause of global warming in the last century. The consensus within the scientific community is overwhelming, and I doubt the main driving force for their position on the matter is job security.

Did they say what percent of climate change was caused by humans, or do they not know?

buddyholly

03-14-2012, 10:39 PM

That being said, I think you underestimate the volume and consistence of the scientific data in support of the arguments that lead back to human activities as the main cause of global warming in the last century. The consensus within the scientific community is overwhelming, and I doubt the main driving force for their position on the matter is job security.

Do they really prove human activities are the main cause?

It is probably no co-incidence that I am a geologist and that geologists are the most skeptical on this. Probably because we see the earth's climate changing dramatically throughout billions of years and wonder why climatologists confine themselves to less than the blink of an eye of time. We know that a few geological instants ago the northern hemisphere was mostly covered by ice and maybe earth is still recovering from that.
We remember that a few decades ago some of the same climatologists were drumming up an Ice Age scare. We realize that the guy in charge of interpreting scientific consensus at the UN has a company that gets millions in grants to study climate change. We remember that the climatologists go on and on about peer review, then the UN publishes a report about melting glaciers in the Himalayas that was pure fiction.

I remain skeptical. The profiteers of global warming, such as Gore, are not to be trusted. I feel sorry for that lone pine tree in Siberia. It gets so much blame.

But this is not a global warming thread. As long as Gore and his cronies want to declare the debate over so that they can make more millions, I will be a contrarian on moral grounds.

Good times.
:spit: Seriously? I can't stand Santorum but he'd still make a better president than half of Europe's leaders.

i would think paul will take it to the convention then throw his weight behind romney, that is my gut feeling..
He did in 2008 and hopefully he will this time. He's lost so much momentum though it's hard to see him picking up anything. Kansas killed it for me. I've lost hope in republicans.

Leaving aside the talk about its causes, it is an unequivocal, universally accepted fact that the earth's temperature is increasing.
Wrong. According to people who actually study this, the globe cooled down in the period 2000-2010.

orangehat

03-15-2012, 03:00 AM

:spit: Seriously? I can't stand Santorum but he'd still make a better president than half of Europe's leaders.

:facepalm:

Jimnik

03-15-2012, 10:31 AM

:facepalm:
:facepalm: :facepalm:

buddyholly

03-15-2012, 02:07 PM

Wrong. According to people who actually study this, the globe cooled down in the period 2000-2010.

That is supposed to be hidden from us.

Har-Tru

03-15-2012, 02:14 PM

Do they really prove human activities are the main cause?

It is probably no co-incidence that I am a geologist and that geologists are the most skeptical on this. Probably because we see the earth's climate changing dramatically throughout billions of years and wonder why climatologists confine themselves to less than the blink of an eye of time. We know that a few geological instants ago the northern hemisphere was mostly covered by ice and maybe earth is still recovering from that.
We remember that a few decades ago some of the same climatologists were drumming up an Ice Age scare. We realize that the guy in charge of interpreting scientific consensus at the UN has a company that gets millions in grants to study climate change. We remember that the climatologists go on and on about peer review, then the UN publishes a report about melting glaciers in the Himalayas that was pure fiction.

I remain skeptical. The profiteers of global warming, such as Gore, are not to be trusted. I feel sorry for that lone pine tree in Siberia. It gets so much blame.

But this is not a global warming thread. As long as Gore and his cronies want to declare the debate over so that they can make more millions, I will be a contrarian on moral grounds.

I simply find it hard to believe it's all a mere leftist conspiracy, but I'll admit I'm not an expert in the matter so I'll leave it there.

:spit: Seriously? I can't stand Santorum but he'd still make a better president than half of Europe's leaders.

You think you might have any arguments to back up that statement? Smileys don't count.

Wrong. According to people who actually study this, the globe cooled down in the period 2000-2010.

Link? Honestly, I'd like to find out more about this if it is true, since it seems to contradict what I've recently read in largely respectable publications.

fast_clay

03-16-2012, 12:04 AM

without wanting to stray off topic too much, i simply find it much too hard to buy into studies recorded during the time of man when recorded natural history tells us that we entered multiple ice ages for millions upon millions of years with a wide array of causes hypothesised... i don't think that we can be that arrogant to trust a few hundred years of recorded events by man stacked against the untold millenia...

sure, sustainability is the way forward in not only the field of ecology, but when fucked up shit like carbon tax is forced upon society due to heavy political lobbying... well... no thanks... that's just man fucking up on the back of another fuck up in my opinion...

Black Adam

03-16-2012, 11:13 PM

Well, here in the UK, the winters have got colder and Summers hotter.

Global Warming? Try harder!

buddyholly

03-17-2012, 12:25 AM

It all balances out. Toronto had a non-existent winter. Hoping for lots more like it.
We put up the outdoor nets last Sunday - 7 weeks ahead of schedule.
Today was a T-shirt and shorts day.

sicko

03-17-2012, 01:41 AM

from one of the pioneers of freedom to this bunch of fascistic candidates. america where have you gone. :facepalm:

buddyholly

03-17-2012, 03:15 AM

from one of the pioneers of freedom to this bunch of fascistic candidates. america where have you gone. :facepalm:

But it elected a black socialist. Do you have a problem with that?

fast_clay

03-17-2012, 03:23 AM

But it elected a black socialist. Do you have a problem with that?

obama runs a fascist state today... the biggest difference between fascism and socialism is that fascists are clever enough to allow the people to believe they still operate inside a free market...

Chase Visa

03-17-2012, 05:17 AM

But it elected a black socialist. Do you have a problem with that?

:lol:

orangehat

03-17-2012, 05:21 AM

But it elected a black socialist. Do you have a problem with that?

:facepalm:

sicko

03-17-2012, 11:29 AM

But it elected a black socialist. Do you have a problem with that?

why should I have a problem?

obama socialist? you seem like a hillbilly to me.

fast_clay

03-17-2012, 12:28 PM

as i said, fascism pretty much is socialism, just under the guise of crony capitalism

history says hyperinflation is next for the US of A

Har-Tru

04-10-2012, 08:33 PM

Santorum quits.

Romney vs Obama it is.

Echoes

04-11-2012, 05:53 PM

Go Mitt. Republicans rule !

Only they can generate anti-American feelings in Europe. Anyway, Obama did the same policy. But with vaseline.

buddyholly

04-12-2012, 02:27 AM

why should I have a problem?

obama socialist? you seem like a hillbilly to me.

Surely even you could figure out that I was just mocking your calling all the Republicans fascists. Oh wait, maybe not..............

HEEHAW! You seem like a silly billy to me.

buddyholly

04-12-2012, 02:29 AM

:facepalm:

Same goes for you as regards pointing out that I called Obama a black socialist, but not recognizing it was clearly a riposte to a post calling the Republicans fascists..

Gagsquet

04-12-2012, 02:52 AM

Same goes for you as regards pointing out that I called Obama a black socialist, but not recognizing it was clearly a riposte to a post calling the Republicans fascists..

Don't forget you said Obama was a thick-lipped bastard.

Filo V.

04-12-2012, 03:02 AM

As long as Americans continue to blame Republicans for the economic meltdown and subsequent stalling, then Obama will continue being the heavy favorite. Current polls have him ahead by 5-15 points over Romney. Even Rasmussen, long known titled to conservatives' favor, has Obama leading.

The economy is still weak, however, due to European countries' problems, the housing industry continuing to be slow, high gas prices, which are largely due to Iran and largely due to competition with other countries for crude oil, and because we have a locked Congress. As long as Congress continues to be locked and the Health Care bill is completely in limbo, the economy won't improve as much as it needs to. There is way too much uncertainty right now. What's going on is that no-one knows what's going to happen next and everyone is scared to do anything because they don't know what the result of they taking any sort of action will be, politically, socially, economically, domestically. So instead people are sitting on money. And the government is sitting on money.

Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats have intentionally created a culture of uncertainty to eliminate Barack Obama and luckily, American citizens see what's going on. That combined with Mitt Romney being disliked means he's still probably 75% likely to remain in office, unless the economy REALLY tanks, or he gets caught in a scandal.

orangehat

04-12-2012, 03:07 AM

Same goes for you as regards pointing out that I called Obama a black socialist, but not recognizing it was clearly a riposte to a post calling the Republicans fascists..

Republicans are closer to fascism than obama is to socialism though.

In other news, it is paramount that Obama win reelection this fall.
If he doesn't, the Legislative session of 2015-2016, and maybe the entire term of Romney if democrats lose the senate this time around, will be dominated by Republicans.

Cue a flood of neo-nazi policies if that happens.

Obama is ahead, for now.

However, two (maybe three) major issues: economy(/gas prices) and Iran.

WSJ predicts a mild-to-moderate double dip recession later on this year.
Iran situation is very volatile.

One situation that can occur and may shake up the race majorly: If Obama asks Hillary to run as VP instead.
I don't think Obama is considering this approach very seriously yet, but if things get worse in the next few months he may start to seriously consider this.

buddyholly

04-12-2012, 03:46 AM

Don't forget you said Obama was a thick-lipped bastard.

I don't think so. Unless it was more sarcasm.

Filo V.

04-12-2012, 04:41 AM

Obama is on his "play up the middle" strategy and is at risk of seriously alienating the people who elected him into office in 2008. I wish he would actually show at least an attempt to care about following through on some of his promises.

abraxas21

04-12-2012, 04:43 AM

why should I have a problem?

obama socialist? you seem like a hillbilly to me.

explanations and sarcasm excuses aside, you have to understand... to the likes of BH anything to left of maggie thatcher and ronald reagan is automatically socialist or flat out commie.

buddyholly

04-12-2012, 03:32 PM

Not necessarily socialist. Stupid, yes.

Jimnik

04-12-2012, 09:41 PM

In other news, it is paramount that Obama win reelection this fall.
:facepalm:

If he doesn't, the Legislative session of 2015-2016, and maybe the entire term of Romney if democrats lose the senate this time around, will be dominated by Republicans.

Cue a flood of neo-nazi policies if that happens.

:facepalm:

fast_clay

04-12-2012, 10:27 PM

high gas prices, which are largely due to Iran and largely due to competition with other countries for crude oil

you'll have to try harder... or maybe switch off the tv...

the US is producing more oil domestically than ever in it's history... and it is using the least amount of oil since 1997... by rights, the price should be coming down...

but it is not... i shouldn't need to tell you why

abraxas21

04-12-2012, 10:43 PM

you'll have to try harder... or maybe switch off the tv...

the US is producing more oil domestically than ever in it's history... and it is using the least amount of oil since 1997... by rights, the price should be coming down...

plus, what the US produces is only a small fraction of what it consumes

oz_boz

04-12-2012, 10:52 PM

Nice to see oil mentioned here, problems in increasing world oil production may be a key factor behind the global economy struggling the last 4-5 years.

Bear in mind though that US increases production again, as can be seen to the right in the graph. Will be interesting to see if (Canadian) oil sands and shale can make up for the decline in world production in the long run, my guess it will not. Also, shale produces mostly gas which could of course be used for liquid production but the surge in NG may be due to a rush that cannot sustain production growth, atm price is probably way too low under breakeven.

Edit: The US produce slightly more than 1/4 of consumption.

fast_clay

04-12-2012, 11:18 PM

sure about that?

sorry, you're right, not highest production ever - but highest oil production since 1993-94... i will stand corrected, had to double check what i read a couple of months back

while the republicans blame obama's poor energy policy for high prices at the petrol pump, and while obama palms it off and blames growth in global economies for the increase they are really both wrong...

it is inflation that is driving the price of oil up...

so how is that happening...?

because The Fed is creating false wealth by artificially keeping interest rates low thereby allowing money expansion to debase the currency at a time when the market itself is begging for higher interest rates...

in another time counterfeiting was punishable by death... successive quantitative easing programs are today equivalent... bernanke is one dumb fukker - or could anyone be that dumb...? if i didnt know any better, i would imagine bernanke is actually attempting to dig the greatest financial hole in economic history....

as for iran, they should not be blamed for the high oil prices... what they are guilty of is their wish to deal in gold in the trade of oil with china, russia and india... of course, this would go a long way towards the U.S. dollar being discarded as the worlds reserve currency, which if you read between the lines is the reason why the U.S is getting riled up in the gulf...

paul secures 5 state wins... he's guaranteed a place on the convention ballot... funniest one was iowa, the first state... romney won originally, then santorum was announced the win - now paul ends up the man... :lol: just too well played by the paul campaign in these caucus states... their strategy is only just now bearing fruit..

romneys camp getting nervous again, trying to change rules late in the game in upcoming states...

Topspindoctor

05-08-2012, 01:32 AM

Romney is a slight improvement on Obama but not by much.

Still hoping Dr Ron runs as a 3rd option.

Lol.

duchuy89

05-08-2012, 02:15 AM

this seems weird.

I want to hope that anyone but Romney gets nominated such that they would almost certainly lose to Obama next year.

yet if america goes crazy and elects that nominee (bar Romney, who has a few questionable policies himself) look for the US of A to fall into third world status by 2016 (exaggerating, of course, but you get my drift)

I think, Romney will becomes president.

Jimnik

05-08-2012, 06:47 AM

Dr Paul will probably run until the end of the primary, like 2008. No way he's getting the republican nomination but hopefully some solid results in the 15-30% range.

All I care about now is whether he'll run as a Libertarian or Independent.

Filo V.

05-08-2012, 10:48 AM

Hopefully Ron Paul does run and steals votes from Romney. Gary Johnson running could take away many votes from both Romney and Obama.

If the elections ended today, Obama would win presidency, and it isn't even particularly close. Romney looks likely to have severe problems getting conservatives out to vote. Obama has the lead in most swing states currently.

Stensland

07-01-2012, 04:06 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78037.html

Trump, Koch brothers among megadonors looking down-ticket

this adelson guy could become one of the most influential donors ever. he's determined to defeat obama, whatever it takes. he sure got the war chest...

Johnny Groove

07-01-2012, 04:06 PM

Like every election on planet Earth since the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, whichever candidate has the more effective propaganda machine will win.

Jimnik

07-02-2012, 11:22 PM

Both candidates will have plenty of money and most will be thrown at Florida and Ohio.

I guess that incident with the bong would have been his Achilles heel.

Naudio Spanlatine

08-14-2012, 04:17 AM

The Obamacare:facepalm: is just killing me if someone doesnt stop this this country will go down hill in seconds :o

orangehat

08-14-2012, 04:25 AM

The Obamacare:facepalm: is just killing me if someone doesnt stop this this country will go down hill in seconds :o

Can people honestly explain to me what it is about Obamacare that makes it oh-so-terrible?

Most republicans in Mass. liked Romneycare AFAIK

Naudio Spanlatine

08-14-2012, 04:36 AM

Can people honestly explain to me what it is about Obamacare that makes it oh-so-terrible?

Most republicans in Mass. liked Romneycare AFAIK

Basically his Obamacare means that he will cater to those who havent even worked that hard at all and will give them more benefits than the people who have worked so hard in their lives. I mean i understand you want to help out the people who are not rich or anything but to punish some of the people who worked very hard in their work by not only taxing them but to also take more money out of their health benefits plan. This obamacare is nothing but trouble and this is the last thing the country need is to give more money to the illegals we have in this country who hasnt even contribute to this country, most of the illegals would go back to their country and give the money there instead of contributing here, if they want to become legal they are gonna have to work hard to be here and to at least learn the language of english since they want to live in america so badly. If you want them to feel a part of america at least have a program where you can teach them how to become legal by making them work.

Its just ridiculous what Obama is doing. All his ever cared about was fame and his votes. At least Bush had the odacity to admit that he was not perfect. But Obama wants all of us to believe that his "plan" will help the country do better but its really doing us even more damage, its bad enough that our economy is in deep trouble.

Im not a politics fan nor will i ever be, but this is just getting absolutely out of hand in a way that i feel sorry for the country of USA.

Neumann

08-14-2012, 09:47 AM

Ryan is a great choice for Romney, and should make the race more substantive. He is very good with policy, genuinely tries to fix the long-term problems, and has proficiency with the numbers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=player_embedded). Plus he is a good listener, good-looking, and has energized the Republican base.

I guess Obama still has the edge, but given that he is going to be significantly outspent, Romney has a pretty decent chance.

In any case, I'm happy that once again, both candidates are intelligent and serious leaders. I was getting worried during the Republican primaries, but fortunately, the best man won. Now, if only the system could get reformed so that it politics worked again (I'm not asking for anything special, just back to the 80's or 90's is fine).

Basically his Obamacare means that he will cater to those who havent even worked that hard at all and will give them more benefits than the people who have worked so hard in their lives. I mean i understand you want to help out the people who are not rich or anything but to punish some of the people who worked very hard in their work by not only taxing them but to also take more money out of their health benefits plan. This obamacare is nothing but trouble and this is the last thing the country need is to give more money to the illegals we have in this country who hasnt even contribute to this country, most of the illegals would go back to their country and give the money there instead of contributing here, if they want to become legal they are gonna have to work hard to be here and to at least learn the language of english since they want to live in america so badly. If you want them to feel a part of america at least have a program where you can teach them how to become legal by making them work.

Some of the general themes you try to convey might be correct (Obamacare might help indeed the unemployed to find an affordable health care option, and overall, it constitutes a hefty tax raise), but you are wrong on the specifics.

Obamacare *does not* cater to those who do not work hard, and Obamacare does not cover illegal immigrants.

Jimnik

08-15-2012, 12:55 AM

Was hoping for a different Paul but it's a good choice.

This election is pretty much a coin toss.

orangehat

08-15-2012, 01:52 AM

Basically his Obamacare means that he will cater to those who havent even worked that hard at all and will give them more benefits than the people who have worked so hard in their lives. I mean i understand you want to help out the people who are not rich or anything but to punish some of the people who worked very hard in their work by not only taxing them but to also take more money out of their health benefits plan. This obamacare is nothing but trouble and this is the last thing the country need is to give more money to the illegals we have in this country who hasnt even contribute to this country, most of the illegals would go back to their country and give the money there instead of contributing here, if they want to become legal they are gonna have to work hard to be here and to at least learn the language of english since they want to live in america so badly. If you want them to feel a part of america at least have a program where you can teach them how to become legal by making them work.

Its just ridiculous what Obama is doing. All his ever cared about was fame and his votes. At least Bush had the odacity to admit that he was not perfect. But Obama wants all of us to believe that his "plan" will help the country do better but its really doing us even more damage, its bad enough that our economy is in deep trouble.

Im not a politics fan nor will i ever be, but this is just getting absolutely out of hand in a way that i feel sorry for the country of USA.

You can't give those who "haven't worked hard" MORE benefits than people who have worked hard. Maybe as much as, but not "more than".

Furthermore, your point about illegals is irrelevant. Right now, when your illegals fall sick and go to ERs, the staff there are still obligated to treat them. They don't go "oh you're illegal so I can't treat you". And when those illegals have no money, who picks up the tab? Taxpayers do. Of course, quite a few right-wingers would probably be happy if hospital staff refused to treat poor illegals, but you also have actual americans who are too poor to have insurance going into ERs/what nots. And then, the american taxpayers are still stuck with the tab. By levelling the insurance playing field, you lower premium costs (generally speaking, not 100% the case), force people to buy insurance so that the incidence of payment falls less on taxpayers.

Honestly, Obama is not doing this for votes. Hell if he were doing things for votes he would most certainly not touch this whole poisonous issue as a whole. But we need someone to touch this. We also need someone to get rid of big pharma and cut medicinal drug prices by half (something which I hate about democrats because they continue to take big money from big pharma companies, of course repubs doing this as well). We need to balance the budget (and not the repub's way of cut taxes, cut everything but military).

orangehat

08-15-2012, 01:53 AM

Was hoping for a different Paul but it's a good choice.

This election is pretty much a coin toss.

Only if your coin had a 70% chance of landing on one side.

The election is pretty much Obama's to lose, Romney's paths to victory are too few.

buddyholly

08-15-2012, 06:07 AM

Can people honestly explain to me what it is about Obamacare that makes it oh-so-terrible?

Most republicans in Mass. liked Romneycare AFAIK

If it is anything like the Canadian system it is terrible. Since I came back to Canada to live I have discovered that the only thing my doctor does other than write a prescription every three months, is refer me to specialists, where the wait time for an appointment is 3-5 months.

For one problem I told the doctor that I did not want to wait five months and asked him where I could go and see a doctor right away and pay for the appointment. He told me, "Buffalo.''

It really was a shock to me to find that there is no alternative to the government health service. I always assumed anyone who wanted could go and pay a private doctor. But there aren't any!